PDA

View Full Version : Is Chloe's friendship a "runner-up prize"?



Pages : [1] 2

droid327
June 12th, 2010, 12:08 PM
Sorry if this is too close to the other Chloe-Eli thread, but this seemed like a separate topic...

I know Chloe meant it in a good way, that her friendship was something of value in and of itself, but I thought it was still a little obtuse - or at worst, arrogant - for her to phrase it that way. She knows Eli has feelings for her (why, I cant imagine...), she knows what kind of relationship he wants with her, so isnt he a runner-up to Scott? Isn't a platonic relationship more of a consolation prize to a romantic one, ie, its better than not being friends at all?

I mean, silver medals are still great and worthwhile and a proud achievement, but no one pretends they wouldnt still rather have the gold...

I guess I just empathize with Eli a little more, and would have preferred if she had said something more about how much their friendship meant to her, rather than suggesting he doesnt value it enough...:)

s09119
June 12th, 2010, 12:11 PM
To some extent, yes. Eli clearly wants more and isn't getting it, so in that regard he's the runner-up to Scott. However, Chloe admitted that she values a truly meaningful friendship more than anything else, so in a way he's closer to her than Scott may ever be.

It'll be interesting how their relationship progresses from here.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 12th, 2010, 12:30 PM
Sorry if this is too close to the other Chloe-Eli thread, but this seemed like a separate topic...

I know Chloe meant it in a good way, that her friendship was something of value in and of itself, but I thought it was still a little obtuse - or at worst, arrogant - for her to phrase it that way. She knows Eli has feelings for her (why, I cant imagine...), she knows what kind of relationship he wants with her, so isnt he a runner-up to Scott? Isn't a platonic relationship more of a consolation prize to a romantic one, ie, its better than not being friends at all?

I mean, silver medals are still great and worthwhile and a proud achievement, but no one pretends they wouldnt still rather have the gold...

I guess I just empathize with Eli a little more, and would have preferred if she had said something more about how much their friendship meant to her, rather than suggesting he doesnt value it enough...:)I guess I don't see it as obtuse or arrogant; it seemed heartfelt and sincere to me. Just because Eli wants another sort of relationship with her doesn't change that; he isn't owed it, especially if, to her, Eli is the one who has really come away with her heart. I don't see her referring to Scott as a friend.

The Shrike
June 12th, 2010, 12:34 PM
From Eli's perspective it clearly is.

MattSilver 3k
June 12th, 2010, 12:34 PM
Hell if I were Eli, I'd be fine with just friendship. I don't mean it in a "because Chloe sucks" way. I mean in a "if you can truly find a good friend and someone to support you, be happy to have at least that. Intervene romantically if absolutely necessary, but seriously man, great friendship is not a bad thing to have. Hell, if a friendship can survive a one-sided romantic feeling and come out the other side with no bad feelings, that's worth keeping!" way. Though I personally root for the two to go romantic, but I hope they at least stay good friends for the duration.

Facial La Fleur
June 12th, 2010, 12:38 PM
Why have the attention of one person when you can have two? In Scott, Chloe sees a lover and a protector, but I don't quite think he's there as emotionally as she would like so she finds that in Eli, her friend and also a sort of protector on another level. She is well aware of Eli's feelings and plays on them to get what she needs but it's looking like she is starting to get over herself a bit and just might make an effort to not be so shallow. The reason she realized she doesn't really have any friends is because they are probably all exactly like her... shallow and only available if it will benefit them somehow.

Paladine
June 12th, 2010, 12:46 PM
You are thinking as a man dude. Women don't view friendship the same way we do. Men can never be friends with a woman they are attracted to. Never...

Women on the other hand think their friendship is an acceptable alternative to not being friends at all with men they aren't attracted to.


And ya this should be in that other thread.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 12th, 2010, 12:54 PM
You are thinking as a man dude. Women don't view friendship the same way we do. Men can never be friends with a woman they are attracted to. Never...

Women on the other hand think their friendship is an acceptable alternative to not being friends at all with men they aren't attracted to.


And ya this should be in that other thread.assumptions, assumptions, you know what they say about assumptions :)

Filipino
June 12th, 2010, 01:03 PM
Eli probably has this idealized version of Chloe to fill in the blanks of what he knows about her. It also understandable seeming they're so far out of the galaxy.

SupremeLegate
June 12th, 2010, 01:19 PM
I look at it as more like while it is not the prize he wanted, it is just as significant, possibly more so.

Kinda like wanting the gold for Diving but instead getting one for Swimming, it may not be what you wanted but it is just as good.


You are thinking as a man dude. Women don't view friendship the same way we do. Men can never be friends with a woman they are attracted to. Never...

Women on the other hand think their friendship is an acceptable alternative to not being friends at all with men they aren't attracted to.


And ya this should be in that other thread.

For the record I am a guy and I can be a friend with a women I am attracted too. In fact if you think about it, depending on how you define “attraction” you could say you would not be friends with someone if, at least on some level, you weren’t attracted to them.

dgh64
June 12th, 2010, 01:34 PM
I'm physically attracted to quite a few of the women I'm friends with. Emotional attraction is a different story, that's (for me at least) something you reserve for that one special person in your life, and it's possible to be friends with that person but quite difficult, in my experience.

General Jumper One
June 12th, 2010, 01:37 PM
For the record I am a guy and I can be a friend with a women I am attracted too. In fact if you think about it, depending on how you define “attraction” you could say you would not be friends with someone if, at least on some level, you weren’t attracted to them.

I am guy and one of my best friends is a woman, that I am attracted too. And I probably wouldn't be her friend if I wasn't attracted to her. But that is all we are, friends, nothing more, but I would like it to be more, as long as we were still friends if it didn't work out.

bobsuncorp
June 12th, 2010, 01:53 PM
assumptions, assumptions, you know what they say about assumptions :)

How dare you call me a sump!

Seriously, I do think this is a Mars/Venus type thing. From Chloe's perspective, having never had a real friend before, it follows that she has never had a lover who is a true friend also (remember her last boyfriend started dating her "best friend" like a week after she left) and so at the point she and Scott hooked up she was not expecting a deep and emotional connection. She has since forged that connection with Eli, but since he is a guy and she is a hot girl, a deep, codependent, emotional relationship without sex is always going to feel like second place. In her heart (and I think in Scott's since he has already "hit that" - guythink again) Scott is actually not as important as Eli.

The problem for guys is that our sexual identity is so closely tied to our sense of self worth that being placed second in that regard does seem like a runner up prize. For girls it is the heart first, the naughty bits second.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 12th, 2010, 02:00 PM
How dare you call me a sump!

Seriously, I do think this is a Mars/Venus type thing. From Chloe's perspective, having never had a real friend before, it follows that she has never had a lover who is a true friend also (remember her last boyfriend started dating her "best friend" like a week after she left) and so at the point she and Scott hooked up she was not expecting a deep and emotional connection. She has since forged that connection with Eli, but since he is a guy and she is a hot girl, a deep, codependent, emotional relationship without sex is always going to feel like second place. In her heart (and I think in Scott's since he has already "hit that" - guythink again) Scott is actually not as important as Eli.

The problem for guys is that our sexual identity is so closely tied to our sense of self worth that being placed second in that regard does seem like a runner up prize. For girls it is the heart first, the naughty bits second.

I never did buy into that whole mars-venus thing. Guys and women aren't really that different, I don't think. Women's sexual identity isn't tied to our self-worth? Again, assumptions :D

bobsuncorp
June 12th, 2010, 02:07 PM
I guess we'll have to ask a haemaphrodite. Maybe we can also ask them how to spell it.

droid327
June 12th, 2010, 02:29 PM
hermaphrodite....a haemaphrodite would be someone who had blood where their genitals should be, and getting your junk blown off is never a good time :D

bobsuncorp
June 12th, 2010, 02:37 PM
ouch! (all the male readers cross their legs)

Gollumpus
June 12th, 2010, 04:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8JA9Qs2Mho

regards,
G.

pipi
June 12th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Sorry if this is too close to the other Chloe-Eli thread, but this seemed like a separate topic...

I know Chloe meant it in a good way, that her friendship was something of value in and of itself, but I thought it was still a little obtuse - or at worst, arrogant - for her to phrase it that way. She knows Eli has feelings for her (why, I cant imagine...), she knows what kind of relationship he wants with her, so isnt he a runner-up to Scott? Isn't a platonic relationship more of a consolation prize to a romantic one, ie, its better than not being friends at all?

I mean, silver medals are still great and worthwhile and a proud achievement, but no one pretends they wouldnt still rather have the gold...

I guess I just empathize with Eli a little more, and would have preferred if she had said something more about how much their friendship meant to her, rather than suggesting he doesnt value it enough...:)

Chloe realises that BFF-only > sex.

YutheGreat
June 12th, 2010, 05:53 PM
I have some idea how Eli feels:

I think he tries to be happy for her; but, he will be hurt and depressed. Me I just keep busy at work and try to avoid them


Sorry if this is too close to the other Chloe-Eli thread, but this seemed like a separate topic...

I know Chloe meant it in a good way, that her friendship was something of value in and of itself, but I thought it was still a little obtuse - or at worst, arrogant - for her to phrase it that way. She knows Eli has feelings for her (why, I cant imagine...), she knows what kind of relationship he wants with her, so isnt he a runner-up to Scott? Isn't a platonic relationship more of a consolation prize to a romantic one, ie, its better than not being friends at all?

I mean, silver medals are still great and worthwhile and a proud achievement, but no one pretends they wouldnt still rather have the gold...

I guess I just empathize with Eli a little more, and would have preferred if she had said something more about how much their friendship meant to her, rather than suggesting he doesnt value it enough...:)

How should Chloe phrase it? I don't think there is a good way to do something like that.

Commander Zelix
June 12th, 2010, 06:23 PM
It sucks completely for Eli. Who want to be a friend with a girl you love but doesn't love you back? Completely masochist. If some people on this forum are in that situation. Don't do it! Stay friend with her (or him if you're a girl) and never call her again. Next time you see her on the street ask her if she still with her boyfriend <insert name>.

the fifth man
June 12th, 2010, 07:25 PM
Hell if I were Eli, I'd be fine with just friendship. I don't mean it in a "because Chloe sucks" way. I mean in a "if you can truly find a good friend and someone to support you, be happy to have at least that. Intervene romantically if absolutely necessary, but seriously man, great friendship is not a bad thing to have. Hell, if a friendship can survive a one-sided romantic feeling and come out the other side with no bad feelings, that's worth keeping!" way. Though I personally root for the two to go romantic, but I hope they at least stay good friends for the duration.

My wife would probably kill herself if that happens. She doesn't want Eli to get hurt in the end.

Blackhole
June 12th, 2010, 07:38 PM
I am not that sure that Chloe is worth what Eli is going through with her. She is of course model attractive and for someone like him, who probably hasn't ever had someone of her attractiveness pay him attention, she must seem like quite a prize. But in my mind beyond her looks, she really doesn't have much to offer him. She doesn't seem particularly bright or skilled or giving. In all their interactions he always seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate and help her and she seems to be there to let him. Eli is a major player on Destiny and Chloe is the shallow beautiful Senator's daughter paper weight. She has never misled Eli and I have nothing against her. It is just that she doesn't seem to really offer him much in the very utilitarian environment of Destiny beyond her looks. I feel for Eli; having to watch her go home to Scott every night has to be sheer misery for him. In a real world setting hopefully, he would eventually realize that he would be far better off spending time with another woman on the ship who has an interest in returning his feelings than in continued frustration with her. I suppose Eli is going to have to find that out for himself. Besides it does make for good drama to have him pining away for her.

Replicator Todd
June 12th, 2010, 10:44 PM
I went to a whole new level of loving Eli and Chloe in this episode.I think Chloe truly cares about her friendship for Eli more than she is letting on.

MattSilver 3k
June 12th, 2010, 11:16 PM
My wife would probably kill herself if that happens. She doesn't want Eli to get hurt in the end.

Then she's thinking negatively. There's no guarantee Eli'll get hurt in the end. Just on the entire journey. :P

meo3000
June 13th, 2010, 02:31 AM
As long as theres hope, theres life. But not in the way you think i mean. Like the good looking girl she is, shes keeping her options open, to the end. A real politician in the making.

Also, im eager to see Eli punch Scott the day he brokes poor Chloes heart.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 03:37 AM
TBH she look slike she could have had a bit part in the coneheads movie, or could have featured as a Xenomorph from the Alien series, her forehead is that HYAWGE.

http://www.clipsland.com/posters/12707-Yaytsegolovie-Coneheads.jpg

GenieinaZPM
June 13th, 2010, 04:02 AM
I'd like to see Eli hook up with someone else. Maybe Lt. James. Despite his spying on her with his kino, of course. I'd say one of the scientist girls, but none of them seem to be any kind of "leading woman". I'm praying not Lisa Park though....He definitely deserves someone loyal.


TBH she look slike she could have had a bit part in the coneheads movie, or could have featured as a Xenomorph from the Alien series, her forehead is that HYAWGE.

She kind of reminded me of River (hopefully I don't have to mention she's from Firefly here lol)

RedXian
June 13th, 2010, 05:42 AM
I'd like to see Eli hook up with someone else. Maybe Lt. James. Despite his spying on her with his kino, of course.

For crying out loud! That was Lt Riley. Why won't anyone believe him.

missmobius
June 13th, 2010, 06:25 AM
You know what happens when it's a friendship where only one of them is in love, the one in love ends up being a sucker for that BFF FOREVER.

Eli will be used, "they" (the Chloe's of the world) will come calling when they need something, i.e. support, a shoulder to cry on etc. etc. It ends up being a very one sided friendship. Better to just say thanks but no thanks or you'll spend many years listening to them crying about how they're present lover has hurt them. Who needs that or wants that. Waste of time, better to just go find a friend who also is your lover!

Oh and Eli can wish all he likes, Chloe will never become a lover to him. No, Chloe is not going to some day realize just how wonderful it would be to also sleep with Eli, but of course she will emotionally use Eli whenever possible.

Eli grow a pair! <mod snip...let's not be rude please>

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 13th, 2010, 08:31 AM
...
She kind of reminded me of River (hopefully I don't have to mention she's from Firefly here lol)you're not alone there; I noticed that resemblance from the beginning

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 13th, 2010, 12:02 PM
The Shrike,

Because a friendship lacks a sexual aspect it doesn't mean it is a "runner-up" prize. Chloe loves Eli she just doesn't have a sexual attraction to him. Eli's attraction to Chloe doesn't give him any sort of ownership over her nor should he see her lack of sexual attraction as a slight. True friendship between a man and a woman shouldn't be demeaned or deminished. It is of great value. If this friendship does not move into the sexual arena it is by no means of lesser value than Chloe's relationship to Scott.

Comm. Z.,

She absolutely does love Eli back. She simply doesn't feel a sexual attraction for Eli. That isn't a character flaw. There is a certian randomness to who we feel a sexual and emotional attraction for. If she doesn't feel that Eli can't make her feel it. Nor should he try. If it's there it's there, if it's not, so be it.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 12:08 PM
Chloe will continue to use Eli and abuse his feelings for her until she is satisfied that she cant get anything more of value or use from him and then she will toss him aside like a piece of litter. Eli needs to recognise her for what she is; a decietfull harpy who uses him for her own ends and the ends of others whom she allies herself with. Eli & Dr Parks, now THAT idea has legs, could be just the sort of education Eli needs, none of this MIT nonsense!

jelgate
June 13th, 2010, 12:11 PM
Chloe will continue to use Eli and abuse his feelings for her until she is satisfied that she cant get anything more of value or use from him and then she will toss him aside like a piece of litter. Eli needs to recognise her for what she is; a decietfull harpy who uses him for her own ends and the ends of others whom she allies herself with. Eli & Dr Parks, now THAT idea has legs, could be just the sort of education Eli needs, none of this MIT nonsense!

Use and abuse Eli's feelings? When did this happen? You can't blame Chloe because she doesn't feel the same way as Eli does

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 13th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Chloe will continue to use Eli and abuse his feelings for her until she is satisfied that she cant get anything more of value or use from him and then she will toss him aside like a piece of litter. Eli needs to recognise her for what she is; a decietfull harpy who uses him for her own ends and the ends of others whom she allies herself with. Eli & Dr Parks, now THAT idea has legs, could be just the sort of education Eli needs, none of this MIT nonsense!

that's really harsh towards Chloe, don't you think?

MattSilver 3k
June 13th, 2010, 12:13 PM
that's really harsh towards Chloe, don't you think?

We're still on a fan forum, aren't we?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 13th, 2010, 12:18 PM
Shai Hulud,


Chloe will continue to use Eli and abuse his feelings for her until she is satisfied that she cant get anything more of value or use from him and then she will toss him aside like a piece of litter. Eli needs to recognise her for what she is; a decietfull harpy who uses him for her own ends and the ends of others whom she allies herself with. Eli & Dr Parks, now THAT idea has legs, could be just the sort of education Eli needs, none of this MIT nonsense!

So, being a good friend to Chloe means she owes Eli sexual favors in return? That she must return his sexual attraction with sex? Gosh, I was unaware friendship of a man to a woman implied ownership of that woman a sex toy. What a lovely idea.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 12:19 PM
Use and abuse Eli's feelings? When did this happen? You can't blame Chloe because she doesn't feel the same way as Eli does

She distracts him in "Divided" long enough for Rush to be able to usurp control of the Destiny. Id say thats an abuse of his feelings towards her?

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 12:20 PM
Shai Hulud,



So, being a good friend to Chloe means she owes Eli sexual favors in return? That she must return his sexual attraction with sex? Gosh, I was unaware friendship of a man to a woman implied ownership of that woman a sex toy. What a lovely idea.

Show me where I implied that and you shall have a cookie. Your putting words in my mouth there Scotty boi, tsk tsk.

jelgate
June 13th, 2010, 12:21 PM
She distracts him in "Divided" long enough for Rush to be able to usurp control of the Destiny. Id say thats an abuse of his feelings towards her?
That was never proven. I find it hard to believe thats what she was trying to do given how much she begged Rush to stop mere minutes later

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 12:22 PM
that's really harsh towards Chloe, don't you think?

Not really, she's the daughter os a US Senator, she knows how to play the political game, making her extremely good at manipulation and she'll have learnt from her mother how to use her femininity to get what she wants.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 12:24 PM
That was never proven.

Errrr thats what she did though. The only reason she lets Eli know about the transfer of the controls is that her buck fuddy Scott is about to get vaporised by the shuttle not being attatched to the Destiny when it goes into FTL - looking after her own best interests again if you ask me.

Pharaoh Atem
June 13th, 2010, 12:25 PM
To some extent, yes. Eli clearly wants more and isn't getting it, so in that regard he's the runner-up to Scott. However, Chloe admitted that she values a truly meaningful friendship more than anything else, so in a way he's closer to her than Scott may ever be.

It'll be interesting how their relationship progresses from here.

and you'd rather be friends with someone then just wallpapaer.

MattSilver 3k
June 13th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Errrr thats what she did though. The only reason she lets Eli know about the transfer of the controls is that her buck fuddy Scott is about to get vaporised by the shuttle not being attatched to the Destiny when it goes into FTL - looking after her own best interests again if you ask me.

Yeah, it's not like she didn't want any deaths on her conscience, Scott and Young or no.

jelgate
June 13th, 2010, 12:29 PM
Errrr thats what she did though. The only reason she lets Eli know about the transfer of the controls is that her buck fuddy Scott is about to get vaporised by the shuttle not being attatched to the Destiny when it goes into FTL - looking after her own best interests again if you ask me.

Still nothing to prove that the reason she was in there was to distract Eli

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 13th, 2010, 07:16 PM
SH,


Show me where I implied that and you shall have a cookie. Your putting words in my mouth there Scotty boi, tsk tsk.

By saying Chloe is "using and abusing" Eli's feelings for him you imply she is playing upon Eli's sexual attraction. She's not. She's been nothing but a friend to Eli and has never implied there could be anything but friendship between them. When you assert her friendship is "using and abusing" Eli you imply that failing to return his sexual attraction with sex is use and abuse. Logically, if that is the case the only way, in your implied situation, she could not be "using and abusing" Eli would be to return his sexual attraction with sex.

You place an awful lot of stock on the situation in Insurrection when it is far from clear that Chloe had any idea anything was happening until she realized the attempted take over was underway.

pipi
June 13th, 2010, 08:00 PM
Chloe at least gets credit for explaining the whole runner up deal to Eli. Most girls think nothing of it and use the Loser word. Such a sexist word. Haven't heard a girl ever being called a loser before.

Friends is still better than no friends. Not a lot of people to choose from, and no internet...

meo3000
June 13th, 2010, 08:16 PM
I hate when someone plays the innocent little girl card.

Chloe knows shes good looking, she knows bating a few eyelash will get her favors. From what we know, her social life back on Earth was all about looks and status, no real friends. She hooked up with Scott once on the ship, 2nd in command, ripped like a god, surprise. All the while using Eli as a friendly personal assistant. And then, when she thinks shes gonna die, she let Eli know that she knows about his feelings but she only loves him like a best friend.

And what does Eli do? He runs to save Scott for her and because he is his friend. What will happen next? Scott will carry Chloe to safety, take the credit for being the hero. Who needs friends like that! Eli has to dump them both, screw them. If their friendship is so important, Chloe will then dump Scott and stick with Eli. If she doesnt, she only proves shes havent change a bit, that shes has fake as her life back on Earth.

Eli needs to realize that onboard Destiny, his knowledge and expertise, make him an alpha-dog, more important than Scott even. And that he shouldnt be someone else female dog, on the contrary...

SGboy
June 13th, 2010, 08:22 PM
eli obviously deserves more, and matt and chloe's relationshp seems to be fizzing out after her capture in "space".

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 13th, 2010, 08:26 PM
meo,


I hate when someone plays the innocent little girl card.

Chloe knows shes good looking, she knows bating a few eyelash will get her favors. From what we know, her social life back on Earth was all about looks and status, no real friends. She hooked up with Scott once on the ship, 2nd in command, ripped like a god, surprise. All the while using Eli as a friendly personal assistant. And then, when she thinks shes gonna die, she let Eli know that she knows about his feelings but she only loves him like a best friend.

And what does Eli do? He runs to save Scott for her and because he is his friend. What will happen next? Scott will carry Chloe to safety, take the credit for being the hero. Who needs friends like that! Eli has to dump them both, screw them. If their friendship is so important, Chloe will then dump Scott and stick with Eli. If she doesnt, she only proves shes havent change a bit, that shes has fake as her life back on Earth.

Eli needs to realize that onboard Destiny, his knowledge and expertise, make him an alpha-dog, more important than Scott even. And that he shouldnt be someone else female dog, on the contrary...

Upon what do you base your conclusion Chloe is a devious woman manipulating everyone around her using Scott for sex and Eli as her, "Personal assistant"? Eli doesn't seem to have much time between Young and Rush's requests for assistance to to much "personal assisting". What could Chloe do, in your opinion, to show she's not using Eli for anything other than a good friend.

GenieinaZPM
June 13th, 2010, 08:43 PM
For crying out loud! That was Lt Riley. Why won't anyone believe him.

Sure sure ;)

Makenshi
June 13th, 2010, 09:03 PM
Why do people reduce Eli's love (the kind of love that back on Earth could eventually lead to marriage and estabilishment of a family) with mere physical atraction and sexual desire?

There are so many things, besides sex, that a boyfriend can experience with a girlfriend and he couldn't by being a mere BFF... let alone being BFF to a girl that has a boyfriend (who will have experience these things, instead of the BFF). And I'm sure Eli wants all these, not just mere sex - that's Scott's/Parker's department.

BTW, does BFF mean anything like "best friend"? Because that's what I think it means somehow... sorry if I'm mistaken.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 13th, 2010, 09:11 PM
Makenshi,


Why do people reduce Eli's love (the kind of love that back on Earth could eventually lead to marriage and estabilishment of a family) with mere physical atraction and sexual desire?

There are so many things, besides sex, that a boyfriend can experience with a girlfriend and he couldn't by being a mere BFF... let alone being BFF to a girl that has a boyfriend (who will have experience these things, instead of the BFF). And I'm sure Eli wants all these, not just mere sex - that's Scott's/Parker's department.

BTW, does BFF mean anything like "best friend"? Because that's what I think it means somehow... sorry if I'm mistaken.

Romantic love can only really exist if the feelings are mutual. If the feelings are not mutual one sided romantic "love" is mighty close to obsession.

GenieinaZPM
June 13th, 2010, 09:13 PM
Why do people reduce Eli's love (the kind of love that back on Earth could eventually lead to marriage and estabilishment of a family) with mere physical atraction and sexual desire?

There are so many things, besides sex, that a boyfriend can experience with a girlfriend and he couldn't by being a mere BFF... let alone being BFF to a girl that has a boyfriend (who will have experience these things, instead of the BFF). And I'm sure Eli wants all these, not just mere sex - that's Scott's/Parker's department.

BTW, does BFF mean anything like "best friend"? Because that's what I think it means somehow... sorry if I'm mistaken.

I think they're saying that Eli has "real" love for Chloe....which includes sexual desire and physical attraction. She has love for him, but it's not a sexual love. It's only the emotional "friend" love.

And yes, BFF = best friends forever

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 09:54 PM
SH,

By saying Chloe is "using and abusing" Eli's feelings for him you imply she is playing upon Eli's sexual attraction. She's not. She's been nothing but a friend to Eli and has never implied there could be anything but friendship between them. When you assert her friendship is "using and abusing" Eli you imply that failing to return his sexual attraction with sex is use and abuse. Logically, if that is the case the only way, in your implied situation, she could not be "using and abusing" Eli would be to return his sexual attraction with sex.

You place an awful lot of stock on the situation in Insurrection when it is far from clear that Chloe had any idea anything was happening until she realized the attempted take over was underway.


meo,

Upon what do you base your conclusion Chloe is a devious woman manipulating everyone around her using Scott for sex and Eli as her, "Personal assistant"? Eli doesn't seem to have much time between Young and Rush's requests for assistance to to much "personal assisting". What could Chloe do, in your opinion, to show she's not using Eli for anything other than a good friend.

Imo there is preponderance of the evidence to indicate that Chloe used her friendship with Eli to distract him during the mutiny. You may or may not agree with this conclusion but in my mind it is true. I am saying this not to be dismissive if you disagree but to just save us from debating this point.

Chloe has aligned herself with Scott who is second in command and is very good friends with Eli. Both individuals are very high on the Destiny hierarchy. If this wasn’t a TV show both of these involvements in and of themselves doesn’t definitively prove anything but on the surface does suggest that she is likely opportunistic in her affections. The situations are similar to the adage that it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich guy as it is with a poor one. This is true but in practice with most very attractive women who end up marrying rich men the basis of their “love” are often their money and not who these men are as a person. The large divorce settlements that often follow are more than proof of this fact. And not to be sexist I have no allusions that these same rich men are usually more interested in the women’s looks than who they are as persons as well.

I agree that Chloe hasn’t lied to Eli and doesn’t owe him sexual favors because of his feelings for her. That being said, my impression of their interactions is that they seem to be decidedly one sided in her favor. My impression may be biased by a prejudice of attractive women who I have witnessed often use their looks manipulatively. It just seems when Chloe and Eli are together it seems Eli is always doing or helping her with something. Maybe it seems that way because Eli is always trying to win her affections or Chloe is just not very self sufficient. I am not certain but in either case it seems Eli spends most of their time together helping her with something or the other. Examples of this one sidedness are in the beginning lighting the room and keeping her company because she was scared; or when she approached him to go to the planet that they ended up stranded on. She knew that once Eli realized that she wanted to go he would ask for both of them and Young would likely give his permission. Or when she showed up and distracted him for the mutiny. Often she seems to arrive in the thick of things because it seems to affords her the opportunity to be involved in what is going on in command. Without Eli these opportunities would not be available to her. Again these actions aren’t definitive proof of anything except that she picks her friends very well. And Chloe’s own admissions of the shallowness of her life tend to support my view of the likely opportunistic nature of her interests in both Eli and Scott.

Azzers
June 13th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Romantic love can only really exist if the feelings are mutual. If the feelings are not mutual one sided romantic "love" is mighty close to obsession.

Honestly, I was with you for the most part up until this quote. The idea that romantic love requires some validation process seems a little off. Entire plays, books, television shows, and movies are based off the idea of unrequited love which is romantic love. There's a reason a majority of these premises are found in romance art, not thrillers.

While I'd agree, Eli has to get with reality... implying that his feelings aren't real unless Chloe shares them just doesn't make sense. That idea functions using the same logic as as "Chloe should love Eli because Eli loves Chloe" in reverse.

I might be talked into using the word obsession to describe Eli (although that will need to be developed more in the story to really be effective), but I also think broadly expanding the definition of obsession to include anyone who is experiencing unrequited love is making the definition a bit too loose. We're generally looking for "unhealthy", and not all unrequited love is necessarily unhealthy provided it finds resolution one way or another.

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 10:20 PM
Honestly, I was with you for the most part up until this quote. The idea that romantic love requires some validation process seems a little off. Entire plays, books, television shows, and movies are based off the idea of unrequited love which is romantic love. There's a reason a majority of these premises are found in romance art, not thrillers.

While I'd agree, Eli has to get with reality... implying that his feelings aren't real unless Chloe shares them just doesn't make sense. That idea functions using the same logic as as "Chloe should love Eli because Eli loves Chloe" in reverse.

I agree that someone can love someone and they don't love them back. Pining away over someone that hasn't returned your love now that is close to obsession.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 10:34 PM
Chloe comes from a background where she is used to getting what she wants, either from Daddy or by her own social manipulations. Prep schools and the top universitys are shark pools, to come out of them and to thrive in the business of diplomacy indicates that Chloe is a lot more savvy than she lets on.

The majority of women will play men along if it gets them what they want, I do it to my husband on a weekly basis.

dgh64
June 13th, 2010, 10:44 PM
I don't think Chloe's relationships with Scott or Eli (or anyone on the ship, really) are opportunistic or manipulative at all. The only evidence I've seen reading this thread is that some people think she intentionally distracted Eli during the revolt. I just rewatched the scene, and when Rush started taking control, she was genuinely surprised -- she didn't know it was happening then. In fact, Eli couldn't figure out why the shuttle's docking clamps wouldn't work and she called his attention to the console across the room, and it was only then that he knew someone was taking control. If she was there to distract him, then she would have waited and let him take longer figuring it out for himself.

I think Scott sorta took advantage of her, not the other way around, way back in Air when she lost her father, he was the one who sat next to her in the observation room and held her hand and asked if she would be alright.

Shai Hulud
June 13th, 2010, 10:49 PM
I don't think Chloe's relationships with Scott or Eli (or anyone on the ship, really) are opportunistic or manipulative at all. The only evidence I've seen reading this thread is that some people think she intentionally distracted Eli during the revolt. I just rewatched the scene, and when Rush started taking control, she was genuinely surprised -- she didn't know it was happening then. In fact, Eli couldn't figure out why the shuttle's docking clamps wouldn't work and she called his attention to the console across the room, and it was only then that he knew someone was taking control. If she was there to distract him, then she would have waited and let him take longer figuring it out for himself.

As I pointed out though dgh, it serves her own self interests in that scene to alert Eli to the transfer because Scott is in the shuttle and will get blown to smithereens if they cant manage to dock with the Destiny. Its hardly a paragon of altruism, she's simply looking out for herself. She actualy admits to Eli later on in the episode that she is in cahoots with Rush, Wray and the rest of the mutineers.

dgh64
June 13th, 2010, 10:57 PM
If all she wants is to save Scott, then letting Rush take complete control would be a quicker way to get the shuttle docked. Instead she alerts Eli, and then Eli and Rush start fighting over control of the ship, which just prolonged the time the shuttle wasn't docked.

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 11:06 PM
I don't think Chloe's relationships with Scott or Eli (or anyone on the ship, really) are opportunistic or manipulative at all. The only evidence I've seen reading this thread is that some people think she intentionally distracted Eli during the revolt. I just rewatched the scene, and when Rush started taking control, she was genuinely surprised -- she didn't know it was happening then. In fact, Eli couldn't figure out why the shuttle's docking clamps wouldn't work and she called his attention to the console across the room, and it was only then that he knew someone was taking control. If she was there to distract him, then she would have waited and let him take longer figuring it out for himself.

I think Scott sorta took advantage of her, not the other way around, way back in Air when she lost her father, he was the one who sat next to her in the observation room and held her hand and asked if she would be alright.

Computer skills are not one of Chloe's strengths. The fact that she was able and did bring Eli's attention to the console tells me she knew what was going on already; otherwise why would she have noticed. Bringing his attention to the console just proves she didn't want to kill anyone. By no means do I think Chloe is a monster. I just think she is opportunistic and will use her attractiveness to further her interests and status.

And you are right that there isn't clear evidence of what I have just said just imo indications.

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 11:08 PM
If all she wants is to save Scott, then letting Rush take complete control would be a quicker way to get the shuttle docked. Instead she alerts Eli, and then Eli and Rush start fighting over control of the ship, which just prolonged the time the shuttle wasn't docked.

Not if she thought that Rush was going to let the transfer play out first and Scott and Young would have died.

dgh64
June 13th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Computer skills are not one of Chloe's strengths. The fact that she was able and did bring Eli's attention to the console tells me she knew what was going on already; otherwise why would she have noticed. Bringing his attention to the console just proves she didn't want to kill anyone. By no means do I think Chloe is a monster. I just think she is opportunistic and will use her attractiveness to further her interests and status.

And you are right that there isn't clear evidence of what I have just said just imo indications.

Let me refer you to my post above -- If she already knew what was going on (like you just said), and she wanted to avoid killing anyone, then her best bet is to let Rush take complete control. She doesn't need to understand what's on the computer screen -- she knows Eli will understand it, and she knows if she shows him he'll do whatever he can to stop Rush taking over.

dgh64
June 13th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Not if she thought that Rush was going to let the transfer play out first and Scott and Young would have died.

Rush didn't want to kill anyone. He just wanted the military to not be in command any more. If Eli hadn't interfered with the transfer, it would have been done in a couple minutes and then he would've activated the docking clamps.

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Rush didn't want to kill anyone. He just wanted the military to not be in command any more. If Eli hadn't interfered with the transfer, it would have been done in a couple minutes and then he would've activated the docking clamps.

In your opinion he may not have wanted to hurt either of them in my opinion he may have wanted the transfer to complete and would have sacrificed them if necessary. With Eli she was certain that he wouldn't sacrifice them.

dgh64
June 13th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Later on she was mad at Rush, she said he promised her nobody would get hurt.

Blackhole
June 13th, 2010, 11:50 PM
Later on she was mad at Rush, she said he promised her nobody would get hurt.

Your statement confirms my point.

dgh64
June 14th, 2010, 12:05 AM
Um, the opposite actually...


In your opinion he may not have wanted to hurt either of them in my opinion he may have wanted the transfer to complete and would have sacrificed them if necessary.

He promised Chloe that nobody would get hurt. That means not sacrificing people, especially someone she's in love with.

meo3000
June 14th, 2010, 12:09 AM
Anyway, now that Eli knows how she feels, he can move on to bigger things, like James...

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Later on she was mad at Rush, she said he promised her nobody would get hurt.

I think you will find that that was Wray, not Chloe.

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 12:25 AM
I think you will find that that was Wray, not Chloe.

Transcript Quote:


ARMSTRONG: I know why you're doing this. I also know you agreed that nobody should get hurt.

Man you really don't like our gal Chloe, am I right?

Replicator Todd
June 14th, 2010, 12:33 AM
Maybe i'm in the minority. But I truly believe Chloe really cares about Eli.

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 12:37 AM
Maybe i'm in the minority. But I truly believe Chloe really cares about Eli.

We're a dying group of rapscallions.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 12:38 AM
Um, the opposite actually...

He promised Chloe that nobody would get hurt. That means not sacrificing people, especially someone she's in love with.

Or someone that furthers her interests. In my mind there are degrees of opportunism. I don't think all her feelings are a sham just that she is self-serving to a degree. I think she is use to using her attractiveness to further her interests and status. I also think part of her interest in Eli is his high status in the Destiny hierarchy. Conversely I think part of Eli's interest in Chloe is her model appearance. Although in Eli case I don't think he is consciously using her. I think he is inexperienced and has never had someone like Chloe show interest in him before and is smitten. In Chloe's case she is fully aware of her effect on Eli and to an extent is using it to her advantage. Although I do think Chloe's experiences on Destiny are deepening her.

Replicator Todd
June 14th, 2010, 12:43 AM
We're a dying group of rapscallions.

We must go out with a bang!

tomstone
June 14th, 2010, 01:01 AM
I think thats the best way it could be. At least in real life, the strongest relationships result from great friendships.

Chloe will surely go for Scott at some point and realise that he is kind of a dog and maybe through an epyphany realises who truly loves her.

Thats just a guess, but it would feel both real and romantic. oh.... and also very cliché.

NativePride
June 14th, 2010, 01:29 AM
Eli needs to avoid any relationship with Chloe. I only see a broken heart in Eli. Something happened when she was on the blues cruise. Maybe she will hear a key word like River and snap like in Firefly? Then at least watching episodes with her in them without thinking if an airlock is her only hope!

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 01:59 AM
Transcript Quote:



Man you really don't like our gal Chloe, am I right?

Oopsy, my bad, appologies dhg64!

FWIW MS, im not a Man! The Chloe character appears to me to be the archetypal damsel in distress, thats the only role which the show has found for her to fulfill thus far, I find that boring myself and am disapointed that the show doesnt have more strong female roles, Kiva being the exception that proves the rule.

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 02:01 AM
FWIW MS, im not a Man! The Chloe character appears to me to be the archetypal damsel in distress, thats the only role which the show has found for her to fulfill thus far, I find that boring myself and am disapointed that the show doesnt have more strong female roles, Kiva being the exception that proves the rule.

Okay. Still doesn't explain why you've made Chloe out to be a conniving manipulator, user and abuser. Then again, I'm not really paying much attention.

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 02:07 AM
Andy why, pray tell, do I have to explain my opinions to you or anyone else? FWIW ive outlined why I believe Chloe to be bad news for Eli and pointed out where she has used his feelings for her to manipulate him. Its just my opinion. If it doesnt bother you that much and your not really paying it much attention why do you continue to reply? We're all inhabitants of a fan forum on the interweb, if we cant express our opinions here then where can we?!

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 02:27 AM
Andy why, pray tell, do I have to explain my opinions to you or anyone else? FWIW ive outlined why I believe Chloe to be bad news for Eli and pointed out where she has used his feelings for her to manipulate him. Its just my opinion. If it doesnt bother you that much and your not really paying it much attention why do you continue to reply? We're all inhabitants of a fan forum on the interweb, if we cant express our opinions here then where can we?!

Okay...

So you're saying that Rush's beard is the one who is in cahoots with the Lucian Alliance and his armpit hair is the only one who can stop more death? It's an interesting theory, I'll have to digest it for a bit.

Lahela
June 14th, 2010, 02:41 AM
Wow... so many scary misogynistic posts :S

Sure, to Eli it may feel like a "runner-up prize" but that's because he's not getting everything he wants. Chloe obviously cares for him very deeply, just not romantically. Why is this so bad?

And I don't think she's manipulated him - to me, it was clear from her reaction to his accusation in Divided that it had not even occurred to her, just like her telling him that something weird was going on on the console illustrated that she did not know when it was going to happen (like she said...). Just because she's a) female or b) a political science student does not mean she's a "harpy".

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 03:22 AM
SH,


Chloe comes from a background where she is used to getting what she wants, either from Daddy or by her own social manipulations. Prep schools and the top universitys are shark pools, to come out of them and to thrive in the business of diplomacy indicates that Chloe is a lot more savvy than she lets on.

The majority of women will play men along if it gets them what they want, I do it to my husband on a weekly basis.

Wow, you are reading a lot into very little. Your anicdotal sample is certianly not enough to support your assertion that "the majority of women will play men along if it gets them what they want."


As I pointed out though dgh, it serves her own self interests in that scene to alert Eli to the transfer because Scott is in the shuttle and will get blown to smithereens if they cant manage to dock with the Destiny. Its hardly a paragon of altruism, she's simply looking out for herself. She actualy admits to Eli later on in the episode that she is in cahoots with Rush, Wray and the rest of the mutineers.

So, it's also altruistic to not want Young and Scott to die. Chloe isn't manipulating Eli unless she knew the attempted take over had started and that is not established based upon what we see during the show. In fact it seems strongly implied that she did not know what was going down until the shuttles docking clamps wouldn't lock into place. Then she put two and two together.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 03:24 AM
Azzers,


Honestly, I was with you for the most part up until this quote. The idea that romantic love requires some validation process seems a little off. Entire plays, books, television shows, and movies are based off the idea of unrequited love which is romantic love. There's a reason a majority of these premises are found in romance art, not thrillers.

While I'd agree, Eli has to get with reality... implying that his feelings aren't real unless Chloe shares them just doesn't make sense. That idea functions using the same logic as as "Chloe should love Eli because Eli loves Chloe" in reverse.

I might be talked into using the word obsession to describe Eli (although that will need to be developed more in the story to really be effective), but I also think broadly expanding the definition of obsession to include anyone who is experiencing unrequited love is making the definition a bit too loose. We're generally looking for "unhealthy", and not all unrequited love is necessarily unhealthy provided it finds resolution one way or another.

Then please allow me to clarify. I think an individual can have "unrequited love" for another. But until that love is returned it isn't true romantic love. There is a line between obsession and "unrequited love" I simply believe the line is quite thin.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 03:33 AM
RT,


Maybe i'm in the minority. But I truly believe Chloe really cares about Eli.

I agree with you. The scene where she explains that her friendship is not a "runner-up" prize was quiet heartfelt and sincere in my opinion. The Friendship Chloe offers to Eli seems to matter a great deal to Chloe.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 03:39 AM
Blackhole,


Or someone that furthers her interests. In my mind there are degrees of opportunism. I don't think all her feelings are a sham just that she is self-serving to a degree. I think she is use to using her attractiveness to further her interests and status. I also think part of her interest in Eli is his high status in the Destiny hierarchy. Conversely I think part of Eli's interest in Chloe is her model appearance. Although in Eli case I don't think he is consciously using her. I think he is inexperienced and has never had someone like Chloe show interest in him before and is smitten. In Chloe's case she is fully aware of her effect on Eli and to an extent is using it to her advantage. Although I do think Chloe's experiences on Destiny are deepening her.

Everyone is "self-serving to a degree". No one is 100% altruistic. Hell, if everyone talking about Eli as pining away for Chloe is correct he's doing everything he's doing in the hopes she will change her mind and see him as a sexual partner. In that light it makes Eli quite "self-serving".

Why can't these two individuals simply have developed a genuine friendship. One which, unfortunately for Eli, Chloe does not feel the same degree of romantic interest for Eli that Eli has for Chloe. It doesn't make Chloe manipulative or self-serving because she doesn't want to have sex with Eli. It means she doesn't have romantic feelings for him. There is nothing wrong with that. She doesn't owe Eli anything nor does Eli owe Chloe anything. We can ship till the cows come home and it doesn't change the fact that Chloe doesn't want to have sex with Eli and that's just fine.

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 03:48 AM
No one is 100% altruistic.

No such thing as altruism, helping other people makes an individual feel good, the act of assisting others releases hormones and chemicals in the brain which give you a buzz.

GenieinaZPM
June 14th, 2010, 03:50 AM
Andy why, pray tell, do I have to explain my opinions to you or anyone else?

I think he may have just been asking for the reasons behind your beliefs so we can all better understand your argument. Nobody is saying anyone is right or wrong (hopefully)....just looking for valid reasons for the beliefs. Who knows, maybe if you present a convincing enough argument more people will agree ;)

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 03:53 AM
SH,


No such thing as altruism, helping other people makes an individual feel good, the act of assisting others releases hormones and chemicals in the brain which give you a buzz.

I disagree that those hormones and chemicals mean altruism doesn't exist.

Phenom
June 14th, 2010, 04:29 AM
In answer to the OP question...

If you loved a girl a whole heap and wanted to do unspeakable things to her....but she just wanted to give you a hug and talk.....would you feel like you won first prize? Um No. And what comes after first????

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 04:41 AM
SH,



I disagree that those hormones and chemicals mean altruism doesn't exist.

Altruism means "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others." But helping other people makes us feel good about ourselves so really, even if its on a subconscious level, altruistic behaviour is self serving.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 04:44 AM
Phenom,

If Eli wants to do "unspeakable" things woith Chloe he has bier issues than I thought.

;)

Phenom
June 14th, 2010, 04:48 AM
Phenom,

If Eli wants to do "unspeakable" things woith Chloe he has bier issues than I thought.

;)

Well I figured the 'unspeakable' things were probably 'unspeakable' as defined by the 'Gateworld talking about boobs' policy. :)

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 04:51 AM
SH,

I know what altruism is. The fact that we get chemical warm fuzzies when we do something altruistic doesn't mean taking a bullet for someone we love isn't a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. The warm fuzzies just don't compaire to the damage a bullet does.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 06:01 AM
Blackhole,

Everyone is "self-serving to a degree". No one is 100% altruistic. Hell, if everyone talking about Eli as pining away for Chloe is correct he's doing everything he's doing in the hopes she will change her mind and see him as a sexual partner. In that light it makes Eli quite "self-serving".

No it doesn't. Self-serving means: 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. Eli putting himself out to always help Chloe in an attempt to win her over is not self-serving. Chloe seemingly (or there are indications of) paying attention to Eli because of his high position in the Destiny hierarchy is; it furthers her interests and increases her status on board, i.e., is self-serving. The same could be said about her relationship with Scott.


Why can't these two individuals simply have developed a genuine friendship. One which, unfortunately for Eli, Chloe does not feel the same degree of romantic interest for Eli that Eli has for Chloe. It doesn't make Chloe manipulative or self-serving because she doesn't want to have sex with Eli. It means she doesn't have romantic feelings for him. There is nothing wrong with that. She doesn't owe Eli anything nor does Eli owe Chloe anything. We can ship till the cows come home and it doesn't change the fact that Chloe doesn't want to have sex with Eli and that's just fine.

I clearly and explicitly said that Chloe doesn't owe him sexual favor because of his interest in her. Please read my posts more carefully.


From my post #55 in this thread: "I agree that Chloe hasn’t lied to Eli and doesn’t owe him sexual favors because of his feelings for her."

And you ignored all the points I made to support my assertion (see my post #55).

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 06:27 AM
Blackhole,

What actions can Chloe take regarding Eli, that she hasn't already undertaken, that would suggest she is not paying attention to Eli because of, "his high position in Destiny's hierarchy"?

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 06:32 AM
Blackhole,

What actions can Chloe take regarding Eli, that she hasn't already undertaken, that would suggest she is not paying attention to Eli because of, "his high position in Destiny's hierarchy"?

An action that helps Eli but hurts her in some significant fashion. To my recollection we haven’t been shown any such action.

Verbally professing deep friendship does mean much; actually doing something for someone because you know it will benefit them even when it will have a negative impact on yourself is evidence of true friendship. Eli always helping Chloe even though it must kill him to see her go home to Scott every night is a perfect example. Carrying her as far as he did is another. Making up she has been studying Dr. Jackson’s notes so she can go to the planet is another.

SupremeLegate
June 14th, 2010, 06:43 AM
No it doesn't. Self-serving means: 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. Eli putting himself out to always help Chloe in an attempt to win her over is not self-serving. Chloe seemingly (or there are indications of) paying attention to Eli because of his high position in the Destiny hierarchy is; it furthers her interests and increases her status on board, i.e., is self-serving. The same could be said about her relationship with Scott.



I clearly and explicitly said that Chloe doesn't owe him sexual favor because of his interest in her. Please read my posts more carefully.



And you ignored all the points I made to support my assertion (see my post #55).

You seem to completely ignore her interactions with Eli before they ended up of Destiny.

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 06:43 AM
Nor are we likely to.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 06:47 AM
You seem to completely ignore her interactions with Eli before they ended up of Destiny.

When she first met Eli he was the genius who had just solved the 9th Chevron's connection problem that Rush had been unable to for 2 years. His high status was already established.

Shai Hulud
June 14th, 2010, 06:51 AM
Plus Chloe knows pretty much everything there is to know about Eli prior to him being beamed up by O'Neil & Rush. She'll know exactly how to pull his strings.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 06:59 AM
What does Chloe gain by being friends, and only friends, with Eli? If she were really trying to manipulate him she would sleep with him or suggest a romantic relationship is possible because that's what Eli wants. Keeping him in the "friendzone" and explaning why that placement isn't a "runner-up" position suggests she's making no effort to manipulate Eli.

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 07:13 AM
Lol. Chloe Armstrong = Super Manipulator! Everything's a huge chess game - she has her pawns and she knows her moves. She spends hours in front of a mirror practising her "damsel" facade. She sinks her claws into the first two guys that comes along and can give her access to both the military and the science groups. She plots with Rush, Wray and Young for control of the ship, using and abusing them into doing what she wants. Scott and Eli are distractions that she slowly turns into loyal pawns. She'll eventually take over the ship, kill the former leaders and put her men in place. Everyone will be swayed by her! SHE WILL WIN AND EVERYONE WILL BOW DOWN AND SAY, "OH MY GOD!"

Because she is CHLOE ARMSTRONG, the biggest magnificent blastard on the show!

(Yeah, no. No. No. No. Nonononononono. No... Hell, even the haters would probably portray her as just a whiny load rather than some big ol' schemer with her hooks in everything. Lol wut?)

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 14th, 2010, 07:19 AM
Maybe i'm in the minority. But I truly believe Chloe really cares about Eli.you're not alone there. We may be a minority but there are a few of us. I believe it's possible for a guy to have female friends, just as it's possible for a woman to have male friends. They're friends, it doesn't really matter what tackle they've got.


Wow... so many scary misogynistic posts :S
... Just because she's a) female or b) a political science student does not mean she's a "harpy".first green of the day
It has been a little scary reading what some people think of women here *shudder*


What does Chloe gain by being friends, and only friends, with Eli? If she were really trying to manipulate him she would sleep with him or suggest a romantic relationship is possible because that's what Eli wants. Keeping him in the "friendzone" and explaning why that placement isn't a "runner-up" position suggests she's making no effort to manipulate Eli.If you want to see Eli being manipulated by a woman, then go look at the scene in Darkness where James separates Eli from Chloe and gets him to meet with the team who want to be kept in the loop. Chloe? I don't think she's ever manipulated him. She's a friend. Because he wants more out of it is on him. It doesn't make her any less of a friend and it doesn't make her owe him anything

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 07:25 AM
What does Chloe gain by being friends, and only friends, with Eli? If she were really trying to manipulate him she would sleep with him or suggest a romantic relationship is possible because that's what Eli wants. Keeping him in the "friendzone" and explaning why that placement isn't a "runner-up" position suggests she's making no effort to manipulate Eli.

There are degrees of manipulation. I think Chloe does like Eli and she is using him to further her interests and status aboard Destiny.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 07:37 AM
Blackhole,

What is she doing that is manipulative? What does she gain from your alleged manipulation?

SupremeLegate
June 14th, 2010, 07:51 AM
When she first met Eli he was the genius who had just solved the 9th Chevron's connection problem that Rush had been unable to for 2 years. His high status was already established.


Plus Chloe knows pretty much everything there is to know about Eli prior to him being beamed up by O'Neil & Rush. She'll know exactly how to pull his strings.

So she couldn't have simply been interested in socializing with the only other person on the ship who was close to her age and as much a fish out of water as her?

dgh64
June 14th, 2010, 08:05 AM
There are degrees of manipulation. I think Chloe does like Eli and she is using him to further her interests and status aboard Destiny.

And what exactly are these "interestes"? The people accusing Chloe of manipulating Eli need to answer this question: Why? What is her ultimate goal? Be the Queen for a Day?

Coronach
June 14th, 2010, 09:03 AM
Wow....irrational Chloe bashing has reached new lows. :S

MattSilver 3k
June 14th, 2010, 09:06 AM
Wow....irrational Chloe bashing has reached new lows. :S

+1. Though it's not irrational if you write with big paragraphs! :D

Coronach
June 14th, 2010, 09:09 AM
+1. Though it's not irrational if you write with big paragraphs! :D

Irrational. Eloquent, well-thought-out and supported by on-screen canon.

Pretty much the same thing. :P

dgh64
June 14th, 2010, 09:43 AM
It's only supported by your (the general your, not anyone iin particular) opinion of on-screen canon and your assumptions of what happened off screen. There's no way to KNOW what was going through her head, but for me at least her intentions have been mostly good.

Zkyire
June 14th, 2010, 10:24 AM
What is so hard to understand about one human caring for another human without being sexually attracted to them?

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Blackhole,

What is she doing that is manipulative? What does she gain from your alleged manipulation?

I have already answered this question carefully in my first post #55 and in several other later ones. I will repost them all one last time.


Imo there is preponderance of the evidence to indicate that Chloe used her friendship with Eli to distract him during the mutiny. You may or may not agree with this conclusion but in my mind it is true. I am saying this not to be dismissive if you disagree but to just save us from debating this point.

Chloe has aligned herself with Scott who is second in command and is very good friends with Eli. Both individuals are very high on the Destiny hierarchy. If this wasn’t a TV show both of these involvements in and of themselves doesn’t definitively prove anything but on the surface does suggest that she is likely opportunistic in her affections. The situations are similar to the adage that it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich guy as it is with a poor one. This is true but in practice with most very attractive women who end up marrying rich men the basis of their “love” are often their money and not who these men are as a person. The large divorce settlements that often follow are more than proof of this fact. And not to be sexist I have no allusions that these same rich men are usually more interested in the women’s looks than who they are as persons as well.

I agree that Chloe hasn’t lied to Eli and doesn’t owe him sexual favors because of his feelings for her. That being said, my impression of their interactions is that they seem to be decidedly one sided in her favor. My impression may be biased by a prejudice of attractive women who I have witnessed often use their looks manipulatively. It just seems when Chloe and Eli are together Eli is always doing or helping her with something. Maybe it seems that way because Eli is always trying to win her affections or Chloe is just not very self sufficient. I am not certain but in either case it seems Eli spends most of their time together helping her with something or the other. Examples of this one sidedness are in the beginning lighting the room and keeping her company because she was scared; or when she approached him to go to the planet that they ended up stranded on. She knew that once Eli realized that she wanted to go he would ask for both of them and Young would likely give his permission. Or when she showed up and distracted him for the mutiny. Often she seems to arrive in the thick of things because it seems to afford her the opportunity to be involved in what is going on in command. Without Eli these opportunities would not be available to her. Again these actions aren’t definitive proof of anything except that she picks her friends very well. And Chloe’s own admissions of the shallowness of her life tend to support my view of the likely opportunistic nature of her interests in both Eli and Scott.


I then elaborated why I thought Chloe was involved in the mutiny and used her friendship to distract Eli. I also indicated that there wasn’t clear evidence for my assertions just indications.


Computer skills are not one of Chloe's strengths. The fact that she was able and did bring Eli's attention to the console tells me she knew what was going on already; otherwise why would she have noticed. Bringing his attention to the console just proves she didn't want to kill anyone. By no means do I think Chloe is a monster. I just think she is opportunistic and will use her attractiveness to further her interests and status.

And you are right that there isn't clear evidence of what I have just said just imo indications.

I then posted that I thought she was self-serving to a degree.


In my mind there are degrees of opportunism. I don't think all her feelings are a sham just that she is self-serving to a degree. I think she is use to using her attractiveness to further her interests and status. I also think part of her interest in Eli is his high status in the Destiny hierarchy. Conversely I think part of Eli's interest in Chloe is her model appearance. Although in Eli case I don't think he is consciously using her. I think he is inexperienced and has never had someone like Chloe show interest in him before and is smitten. In Chloe's case she is fully aware of her effect on Eli and to an extent is using it to her advantage. Although I do think Chloe's experiences on Destiny are deepening her.

Whereupon you told me then Eli must be self-serving too when he attempts to win her affections. I then posted the definition of self-serving and my reasoning for why I disagreed with you.


No it doesn't. Self-serving means: 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. Eli putting himself out to always help Chloe in an attempt to win her over is not self-serving. Chloe seemingly (or there are indications of) paying attention to Eli because of his high position in the Destiny hierarchy is; it furthers her interests and increases her status on board, i.e., is self-serving. The same could be said about her relationship with Scott.

You then asked me what action I would need to see from Chloe that would prove to me that she is without ulterior motives in her interest in Eli. I then posted what actions I thought would qualify.


An action that helps Eli but hurts her in some significant fashion. To my recollection we haven’t been shown any such action.

Verbally professing deep friendship does mean much; actually doing something for someone because you know it will benefit them even when it will have a negative impact on yourself is evidence of true friendship. Eli always helping Chloe even though it must kill him to see her go home to Scott every night is a perfect example. Carry her as far as he did is another. Making up she has been studying Dr. Jackson’s notes so she can go to the planet is another.

I then posted for SupremeLegate that Chloe was aware from the first moment that Eli was a genius and of high status on the Destiny.


When she first met Eli he was the genius who had just solved the 9th Chevron's connection problem that Rush had been unable to for 2 years. His high status was already established.

I then summarized my viewpoint.


There are degrees of manipulation. I think Chloe does like Eli and she is using him to further her interests and status aboard Destiny.

Ser Scot A Ellison and others if you all believe that Chloe is 100% genuine in her feelings for Eli and Scott then good. And if you also believe that there were no ulterior motives that led to a close relationship with two of the highest status members of Destiny’s crew then good again. If you also believe that Chloe did not use her friendship with Eli to distract him in order to further the mutiny then good one more time. And finally, if you haven’t felt that their interactions have seemingly been one sided in her favor, then good one last time. I happen to feel otherwise. I have expressed my viewpoint with my attendant rational several times. At this point why don’t we all agree to disagree?

PG15
June 14th, 2010, 10:39 AM
So she couldn't have simply been interested in socializing with the only other person on the ship who was close to her age and as much a fish out of water as her?

What? No, of course not.

All feeeeeemales are manipulative witches who only want to cook me some dinner wrap men around their fingers and kick us in our emotional, psychological, and physical crotches with their feminine wiles. I also think that, after they have us, they will eat us to provide for our young. I'm pretty sure that's what happens.

At least, that's what I think happens now that I have projected onto Chloe all my feelings of rejection by women who are kinda like Chloe and whom also treat me like I'm Eli, because women are all the same.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 10:57 AM
What? No, of course not.

All feeeeeemales are manipulative witches who only want to cook me some dinner wrap men around their fingers and kick us in our emotional, psychological, and physical crotches with their feminine wiles. I also think that, after they have us, they will eat us to provide for our young. I'm pretty sure that's what happens.

At least, that's what I think happens now that I have projected onto Chloe all my feelings of rejection by women who are kinda like Chloe and whom also treat me like I'm Eli, because women are all the same.

Very well put; and probably truer than some of us men (including myself) may like to admit (the projection bit). But for some women (and some men) it also happens to be very true (the manipulation part).

buuzero
June 14th, 2010, 11:56 AM
The best thing for Eli to do would be to remain plutonic friends with Chloe (as she's made it clear that it's as far as she wants to go with him) and work on romantic relationships with other women on the ship.

Of course, that is once they are done fighting to stay alive...

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 12:41 PM
Blackhole,


And finally, if you haven’t felt that their interactions have seemingly been one sided in her favor, then good one last time. I happen to feel otherwise. I have expressed my viewpoint with my attendant rational several times. At this point why don’t we all agree to disagree?

I'm simply not seeing this advantage in presitge and position she gets from being friends with Eli and from her sexual relationship with Scott. It didn't get her on the shuttle in Light, it didn't prevent Col. Young from attacking the Smurf ship in Space... What advantage do her relationships give her that she wouldn't have without them?

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 01:27 PM
Blackhole,

I'm simply not seeing this advantage in presitge and position she gets from being friends with Eli and from her sexual relationship with Scott. It didn't get her on the shuttle in Light, it didn't prevent Col. Young from attacking the Smurf ship in Space... What advantage do her relationships give her that she wouldn't have without them?

A valid question.

Imo first, it gets her inside information of what is going on at the highest levels and it gets her involvement. Being able to have Scott or Eli ask for and grant her favors gives her a huge advantage over anyone else on the ship. Before everyone jumps down my throat I am not says she has received any preferential treatment just that she would be in a much better position to get it if she desired. Going on the mission to the planet probably wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t known Eli. She is a senator’s daughter and she went to Harvard she is probably keenly aware of the perks that involvement with men of power will bring. In Destiny’s case it is involvement with the second in command and one of the lead scientific minds and advisor. You will also notice she has forged a relationship with Rush. Although in his case I think that was due to them both being kidnapped.

All this being said I don’t think of her as a very manipulative and deceitful woman. I just think growing up in a senator’s family probably taught her the value of power and high level connections. I think her choice to be boyfriends with Scott and best friends with Eli was partially motivated (how much I can’t say) by their positions of importance on Destiny.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 01:44 PM
Blackhole,

I see your point. I'm not going to jump down your throat but I do think it's quite a stretch to claim her access to information is the basis for a claim she's manipulating Eli and Scott. As I pointed out above her alleged efforts at manipulation don't seem to be producing much reward for her.

jelgate
June 14th, 2010, 01:51 PM
What? No, of course not.

All feeeeeemales are manipulative witches who only want to cook me some dinner wrap men around their fingers and kick us in our emotional, psychological, and physical crotches with their feminine wiles. I also think that, after they have us, they will eat us to provide for our young. I'm pretty sure that's what happens.

Have you been reading my thesis?

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 02:00 PM
Blackhole,

I see your point. I'm not going to jump down your throat but I do think it's quite a stretch to claim her access to information is the basis for a claim she's manipulating Eli and Scott. As I pointed out above her alleged efforts at manipulation don't seem to be producing much reward for her.

The two main reasons for my view are first, when she distracted Eli to advance the mutiny. I know you don’t think she did this but I do. Taking advantage of a close friend to do something like that was very manipulative. But I can understand why she joined the mutiny. Young did try to fire on the alien ship while she was still aboard. I probably would have been very pissed if it had been me.

Second my recollection from most of their interactions is that Eli always seemed to be bending over backwards to accommodate and help her. I can’t think of one instance where she is trying to do something selfless for him. I think Chloe’s character is written as a bit of a damsel in distress. Maybe that is the reason I have perceived their interactions that way?

Or I may be biased towards women like Chloe because of projection like PG15 said. I don’t want to come across as misogynistic but I have seen a lot of very attractive women try to wrap men around their fingers.

Commander Zelix
June 14th, 2010, 02:03 PM
Comm. Z.,

She absolutely does love Eli back. She simply doesn't feel a sexual attraction for Eli. That isn't a character flaw. There is a certian randomness to who we feel a sexual and emotional attraction for. If she doesn't feel that Eli can't make her feel it. Nor should he try. If it's there it's there, if it's not, so be it.
I wont do a semantic debate with you but she doesn't love him in the proper sense of the word. She just want to be his friend. While Eli love her (at least he thinks he does) and want to pursue a love relationship with her (live with her, have kids, etc). If I was his friend I would tell what I said above. Stop calling her and then you can ask her if she's still with <insert bf name here> the next time you see on the street or somewhere.

aretood2
June 14th, 2010, 02:06 PM
Lol. Chloe Armstrong = Super Manipulator! Everything's a huge chess game - she has her pawns and she knows her moves. She spends hours in front of a mirror practising her "damsel" facade. She sinks her claws into the first two guys that comes along and can give her access to both the military and the science groups. She plots with Rush, Wray and Young for control of the ship, using and abusing them into doing what she wants. Scott and Eli are distractions that she slowly turns into loyal pawns. She'll eventually take over the ship, kill the former leaders and put her men in place. Everyone will be swayed by her! SHE WILL WIN AND EVERYONE WILL BOW DOWN AND SAY, "OH MY GOD!"

Because she is CHLOE ARMSTRONG, the biggest magnificent blastard on the show!

(Yeah, no. No. No. No. Nonononononono. No... Hell, even the haters would probably portray her as just a whiny load rather than some big ol' schemer with her hooks in everything. Lol wut?)

If only this were true *sigh*....I'm a big fan of that sort of story. I find it interesting and fun to watch...but sadly it is about as likely as me writing and directing an episode of SGU.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 14th, 2010, 02:19 PM
Comm. Z.,


I wont do a semantic debate with you but she doesn't love him in the proper sense of the word. She just want to be his friend. While Eli love her (at least he thinks he does) and want to pursue a love relationship with her (live with her, have kids, etc). If I was his friend I would tell what I said above. Stop calling her and then you can ask her if she's still with <insert bf name here> the next time you see on the street or somewhere.

Why? If it is to let those feelings pass so that he can have a real friendship with her, I agree that makes sense. If it is to hold his friendship back in order to get her to develop romantic feelings for her, that's kind of jerky, in my opinion.

SupremeLegate
June 14th, 2010, 02:27 PM
A valid question.

Imo first, it gets her inside information of what is going on at the highest levels and it gets her involvement. Being able to have Scott or Eli ask for and grant her favors gives her a huge advantage over anyone else on the ship. Before everyone jumps down my throat I am not says she has received any preferential treatment just that she would be in a much better position to get it if she desired. Going on the mission to the planet probably wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t known Eli. She is a senator’s daughter and she went to Harvard she is probably keenly aware of the perks that involvement with men of power will bring. In Destiny’s case it is involvement with the second in command and one of the lead scientific minds and advisor. You will also notice she has forged a relationship with Rush. Although in his case I think that was due to them both being kidnapped.

All this being said I don’t think of her as a very manipulative and deceitful woman. I just think growing up in a senator’s family probably taught her the value of power and high level connections. I think her choice to be boyfriends with Scott and best friends with Eli was partially motivated (how much I can’t say) by their positions of importance on Destiny.

While I would never agree that she did any of that consciously I could see her doing it on a subconscious level. Which, in my mind, would make it all the more important by her statement that Eli’s friendship really is important too her.

So maybe her relationships with Eli and Scott started out because of the reasons you have stated, on a subconscious level, but over time they evolved to be genuine.


The best thing for Eli to do would be to remain plutonic friends with Chloe (as she's made it clear that it's as far as she wants to go with him) and work on romantic relationships with other women on the ship.

Of course, that is once they are done fighting to stay alive...

I think it has been pretty clear that while Eli would like a deeper relationship with Chloe he is content with being “just friends.”

Commander Zelix
June 14th, 2010, 02:28 PM
Comm. Z.,



Why? If it is to let those feelings pass so that he can have a real friendship with her, I agree that makes sense. If it is to hold his friendship back in order to get her to develop romantic feelings for her, that's kind of jerky, in my opinion.
It's really about avoiding entering a relationship where you love someone but the other doesn't love you back beyond staying friend.

aretood2
June 14th, 2010, 02:35 PM
Chloe comes from a background where she is used to getting what she wants, either from Daddy or by her own social manipulations. Prep schools and the top universitys are shark pools, to come out of them and to thrive in the business of diplomacy indicates that Chloe is a lot more savvy than she lets on.

The majority of women will play men along if it gets them what they want, I do it to my husband on a weekly basis.

What? Where did you get that nonsense from? Just because you do that doesn't mean all or even most or even half of the world's population of women are even remotely like that.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 05:03 PM
While I would never agree that she did any of that consciously I could see her doing it on a subconscious level. Which, in my mind, would make it all the more important by her statement that Eli’s friendship really is important too her.

So maybe her relationships with Eli and Scott started out because of the reasons you have stated, on a subconscious level, but over time they evolved to be genuine.

A big part of the reason I think Chloe may have been initially self-serving is because of her own admission of not having any real friends and pretty much having a shallow life. Shallow people do shallow things. One of them is pursuing someone because of the position or power they hold. That is why she had no real friends. They probably associated with her because she was the senator's daughter. And she may have picked her friends for similar reasons. Scott and Eli are the best candidates on Destiny to associate with. Old habits die hard; that is why I think she may have initially chosen them. All that being said I fully agree with you that she has now become far more genuine. The fact that she recognizes what her life had been like is a huge confirmation that her values are changing for the better.

Blackhole
June 14th, 2010, 05:05 PM
I want to add generally that I like Chloe quite a bit. Her determination during Divided to make sure no one was going to be hurt showed significant strength of character.

Zkyire
June 14th, 2010, 05:15 PM
In answer to the OP question...

If you loved a girl a whole heap and wanted to do unspeakable things to her....but she just wanted to give you a hug and talk.....would you feel like you won first prize? Um No. And what comes after first????

That's not love, that's lust.

pipi
June 14th, 2010, 08:58 PM
It's still unclear to me whether Eli actually wants to be romantically involved with Chloe or just get his rocks off. He hasn't shown any signals or flirted, he was just the goofy nerd kid from day 1 who had no friends and wanted one.

So apparently he's runner up? Was he even competing in the first place...

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 15th, 2010, 03:38 AM
pipi,

I think it's pretty clear that Eli believes he is in love with Chloe. Chloe simply doesn't return they romantic attachment Eli has for her which is always a little sad and quite frustrating for the unrequited party.

SupremeLegate
June 15th, 2010, 05:12 AM
It's still unclear to me whether Eli actually wants to be romantically involved with Chloe or just get his rocks off. He hasn't shown any signals or flirted, he was just the goofy nerd kid from day 1 who had no friends and wanted one.

So apparently he's runner up? Was he even competing in the first place...

Well to be fair he is, or was, socially awkward. I would say that his being nothing be nice to her from the get go was his way of flirting. Further, Chloe ended up with Scott pretty quick, within a couple days in universe. So he most likely did not overtly flirt with her because she was with Scott.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 15th, 2010, 05:25 AM
SL,


Well to be fair he is, or was, socially awkward. I would say that his being nothing be nice to her from the get go was his way of flirting. Further, Chloe ended up with Scott pretty quick, within a couple days in universe. So he most likely did not overtly flirt with her because she was with Scott.

Precisely. Look how Eli reacted to having an attractive woman show him attention in "Earth." He doesn't know what to do. Back in the day I knew exactly how he felt. A woman shows interest and I'd get tounge tied and awkward. It comes with a lack of self-confidence. What's sad is very bright people lack self-confidence, in my opinion, because they are smart enough to see their own flaws and wonder why everyone else doesn't see them.

SupremeLegate
June 15th, 2010, 05:41 AM
SL,



Precisely. Look how Eli reacted to having an attractive woman show him attention in "Earth." He doesn't know what to do. Back in the day I knew exactly how he felt. A woman shows interest and I'd get tounge tied and awkward. It comes with a lack of self-confidence. What's sad is very bright people lack self-confidence, in my opinion, because they are smart enough to see their own flaws and wonder why everyone else doesn't see them.

Yup, that has been my personal observation. But I think he is starting to build some self-confidence.

Blackhole
June 15th, 2010, 09:35 AM
SL,

Precisely. Look how Eli reacted to having an attractive woman show him attention in "Earth." He doesn't know what to do. Back in the day I knew exactly how he felt. A woman shows interest and I'd get tounge tied and awkward. It comes with a lack of self-confidence. What's sad is very bright people lack self-confidence, in my opinion, because they are smart enough to see their own flaws and wonder why everyone else doesn't see them.

Good points

droid327
June 15th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Yup, that has been my personal observation. But I think he is starting to build some self-confidence.

I think, just from all the crap he's gone through since he joined Project Icarus, that he's developed a lot as a person. I'm finding it harder and harder to buy his self-esteem issues after he's saved the ship a couple times already, been marooned, staved off a mutiny, fought aliens, all that stuff. I'm willing to write it off with Chloe as "holdover" feelings from his earlier, insecure, MMO-playing self, but realistically he should be showing a lot more maturity in all aspects of his character (which I think he is, especially in Incursion 1-2, but just keep it up :D)

I also really dont buy the Eli-Chloe attraction as much more than immature puppy love, either. I think it either will have to come down to Chloe breaking up with Scott and running to Eli, they date for a while and then flame out, or Eli will have a moment of clarity and realize he never really loved Chloe after all.

Kaiphantom
June 15th, 2010, 12:05 PM
Mattsilver 3k, Coronach, PG15, I expected better of you. You don't need to resort to bashing of people who disagree with you. You don't need to make fun of, and knowingly distort the arguments being made, as a way to mock an honest conversation.

All attractive women are manipulative to some degree, though not all of them do it consciously. They simply realize guys seem quick to do things for them, and while they might not know why, they have no problems letting those guys fall over themselves. It's a learned behavior precisely because of sexual attraction. Throw in Chloe's political training, and you have to admit that she has sufficient background to do it *if* she wanted to. Whether she is or not, I'll leave ambiguous, but those arguing this viewpoint have a point.

What I will say, is that Chloe seems to care more about Eli than Scott, on an emotional level. There's a term for this: "Emotional Cheating." It's what is going to doom Chloe and Scott's relationship, because she is "getting it" from another guy, ie, emotional intimacy. This is no different than physical cheating.

That is, if SGU still pretends to be a more realistic show. It is so far, with hot girl going for hunky guy, and using the nerdy guy as a rag. Of course, if it were really realistic, Scott would grow tired of Chloe, not having the closeness that she gives to Eli, and he would seek attention in the arms of another; probably James. Chloe would learn of this, accuse him, he'd accuse her of getting it from Eli, the relationship would end, and she'd run to Eli to whine at him, telling him that he's such a good friend and always there for her.

Then go out and probably start bonking Greer.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 15th, 2010, 01:20 PM
Kaiphantom,


All attractive women are manipulative to some degree, though not all of them do it consciously.

Wow is that an overgeneralization.

Spimman
June 15th, 2010, 01:23 PM
In response to title - Chloe is no prize, Eli deserves better.

Shai Hulud
June 15th, 2010, 01:29 PM
Kaiphantom, Wow is that an overgeneralization.

Not in the slightest, if you believe otherwise then your a tad naive.

aretood2
June 15th, 2010, 01:30 PM
Mattsilver 3k, Coronach, PG15, I expected better of you. You don't need to resort to bashing of people who disagree with you. You don't need to make fun of, and knowingly distort the arguments being made, as a way to mock an honest conversation.

All attractive women are manipulative to some degree, though not all of them do it consciously. They simply realize guys seem quick to do things for them, and while they might not know why, they have no problems letting those guys fall over themselves. It's a learned behavior precisely because of sexual attraction. Throw in Chloe's political training, and you have to admit that she has sufficient background to do it *if* she wanted to. Whether she is or not, I'll leave ambiguous, but those arguing this viewpoint have a point.

What I will say, is that Chloe seems to care more about Eli than Scott, on an emotional level. There's a term for this: "Emotional Cheating." It's what is going to doom Chloe and Scott's relationship, because she is "getting it" from another guy, ie, emotional intimacy. This is no different than physical cheating.

That is, if SGU still pretends to be a more realistic show. It is so far, with hot girl going for hunky guy, and using the nerdy guy as a rag. Of course, if it were really realistic, Scott would grow tired of Chloe, not having the closeness that she gives to Eli, and he would seek attention in the arms of another; probably James. Chloe would learn of this, accuse him, he'd accuse her of getting it from Eli, the relationship would end, and she'd run to Eli to whine at him, telling him that he's such a good friend and always there for her.

Then go out and probably start bonking Greer.

Am I supposed to...lets see...where to start.....

Okay, how about dropping generalizations before you expect people to take you seriously?

All Attractive women are attractive...that's the only way to make that sentence truthful to be honest. First of all, you are pining a type of personality to looks, which are highly subjective to begin with. Attractive women...well....what if I don't find the same women attractive as you do? So how does that work with your theory? It's my experience that women don't enjoy the company of a guy who is practically their slave...they kind of like a man you know? I know it's strange...but they like men...well...some like women but lets not get into that. Most men don't react the same way as others...you might become an attractive woman's slave, but I might just stop at trying to woe her, if I am attracted to her in that way, and after a serious relationship starts, I would expect somethings from her and not just sex...or sex at all.

Chloe does seem to have more things going on with Eli. Now it's natural for people to be with those that make them feel safe, and personally this is what I think Happened between Chloe and Scott. Scott needed someone to confide in, someone to be with...and Chloe needed a safety net. They are both mutually benefiting from that relationship. Eli provide Chloe with a safe outlet for her emotions, him on the other hand...Chloe is just the pretty girl he has become infatuated with. He wants her to like him...but honestly why should she? If I don't even know why he likes her...why would I even want her to like him in a romantic fashion? What does he have to offer emotionally? It would just be a bad Idea for her, and in a way she sees that I guess.

Now bieng a more realistic show doesn't mean being a reality show nor a full blown drama. I would prefer it to keep away from diving into depth on this little triangle of something. What I see happening is Chloe realizing that she doesn't need someone to be her protector, she needs someone who can understand her and be there for her emotionally, someone who she can also be there for. So maybe she'll jsut take Eli's friendship and dump the seemingly shallow relationship with Scott.

Shai Hulud
June 15th, 2010, 01:47 PM
Then go out and probably start bonking Greer.

TBH she has all the makings of a classic Electra complex. Chloe + Rush for S2 - Its a winner! ;)

jelgate
June 15th, 2010, 02:04 PM
Not in the slightest, if you believe otherwise then your a tad naive.

Its never all or none. Sure some women are mantipulative just like some men are mantipulative but their is no way every women with beauty (subjective BTW) is a mantipulative

Kaiphantom
June 15th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Wow is that an overgeneralization.

It's really not; studies of human behavior would show you otherwise. If it helps, people in general are manipulative. They use what they have to get what they want.

Not all of them do it consciously, as I noted in my post, which means they simply do it subconsciously. If you really don't believe this, look up pavlov's dogs sometime. It's scientifically proven. You don't have to believe science, though.

How about I phrase it this way? "Attractive women are generally conditioned to use their beauty to their advantage, because of reactions to their beauty as they are growing up."

Shai Hulud
June 15th, 2010, 03:44 PM
It's really not; studies of human behavior would show you otherwise. If it helps, people in general are manipulative. They use what they have to get what they want.

Not all of them do it consciously, as I noted in my post, which means they simply do it subconsciously. If you really don't believe this, look up pavlov's dogs sometime. It's scientifically proven. You don't have to believe science, though.

How about I phrase it this way? "Attractive women are generally conditioned to use their beauty to their advantage, because of reactions to their beauty as they are growing up."

Shame on your for bringing rational, reasoned points to this farcical 'debate.' ;) Although the example of Pavlovian responses to a set of conditioned stimuli doesnt really work in this analogy. :)

Kaiphantom
June 15th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Shame on your for bringing rational, reasoned points to this farcical 'debate.' ;) Although the example of Pavlovian responses to a set of conditioned stimuli doesnt really work in this analogy. :)

Haha. :P Well, most of human behavior can be broken down into pavlovian responses. We alter our behavior based on positive and negative responses, not all of which we are consciously aware of. The smart ones (ie, politicians) use this against you. Chloe, as both an attractive woman, and learned in the ways of politics, has a double whammy. Dunno if she does it consciously, but it's ingrained into her. It takes awhile to change learned behaviors...

Azzers
June 15th, 2010, 06:01 PM
Wow... so rigid.

I'm not even going to attack the "every attractive woman is manipulative" stance, becuase it's simply incomplete.

Every human being is manipulative. We all know how to do it, and we've all done it. Suggesting that attractive people do it by default because they're attractive... well, I don't see how you win there. Do they stop being attractive? Chloe, by nature of being attractive will have men offer to do things for her, but she has no say in the matter. True, she could get angry every time it happens... but until she meets every man on the planet, it's not going to stop.

Attractive men do the same thing. How many will flat out tell a woman, they're not interested? No, most of them will have their fun either through conversation or "other activities." Like women, men like their ego's stroked too.

And it's not like unattractive people are saintly either. Lets look straight at Eli (although David Blue is not an unattractive man, the role of Eli is meant to have "looks" issues). Does he actually TALK to Chloe when she makes him angry? No, he manipulates her into asking him what's wrong by simply being a jerk. He could have just said, "why did you distract me."

And not to put too fine a point on it, but everyone here has dated, right? I mean, is that experience even remotely real? Sure, you might find a few people who are "real" the first date, but the entire idea of "first impression" tends to steer that event into the entire realm of manipulation.

Just saying... manipulative people... well, yea!

"Sometimes grownups do that."

wargrafix
June 15th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Kaiphantom,



Wow is that an overgeneralization.

Actually its quite true. Remember, women are the masters of psychological warfare.

jelgate
June 15th, 2010, 06:56 PM
Actually its quite true. Remember, women are the masters of psychological warfare.

Suddenly the excessive crying makes sense:P

*run away from the mob*

wargrafix
June 15th, 2010, 07:02 PM
Suddenly the excessive crying makes sense:P

*run away from the mob*

For real. Chloe's trolling for sympathy.

She could screw up, but the moment she looks remorseful, everyone goes "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, poor baby."

Spimman
June 15th, 2010, 07:05 PM
I don't think Chloe is a bad manipulative person, although she is the daughter of a US Senator (former), and so I'm sure she knows how to play the game.

All the being said, she chose Eli as a friend, and I think she is sincere in her desire for his friendship. She isn't leading him on or implying anything more in that relationship, and has even implied or somewhat directly told him that much.

Eli needs to be a friend and stop hitting on her, he needs someone who loves him for him, not someone he has to wait around for and try to convince he is just as good as her current boy toy!

wargrafix
June 15th, 2010, 07:16 PM
ALL socialites know how to play the game.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 15th, 2010, 08:22 PM
SH,


Not in the slightest, if you believe otherwise then your a tad naive.

It's naive to believe not every attractive woman on the planet is a conscious or sub-conscious manipulator of men? Perhaps the sub-conscious point is correct but only because everyone, at some point or another, sub-consciously manipulates others. That is regardless of their physical attractiveness.

Shai Hulud
June 16th, 2010, 12:32 AM
That is regardless of their physical attractiveness.

Sorry but your wrong, a woman's attractiveness is one of the main weapons in her arsenal when it comes to getting her way. You dont see men falling over themselves to do favours for big fat munters, its the nubile young filly's who get the attention and lead the stalions round by metaphorical rings through their noses.

Wayston
June 16th, 2010, 12:35 AM
It's naive to believe not every attractive woman on the planet is a conscious or sub-conscious manipulator of men? Perhaps the sub-conscious point is correct but only because everyone, at some point or another, sub-consciously manipulates others. That is regardless of their physical attractiveness.

Not every attractive woman will want to manipulate every man... in fact most men won't interest them. But you'd better believe that attractive women are perfectly aware of the effect they (can) have on any man they come across. It's a two way street of course, most man voluntarily bend themselves backwards for attractive women and try to anticipate their needs before any manipulation could even start. Then when she makes clear what the limits of the relationship are many men feel they were being lead on, when in fact they weren't necessarily being manipulated.

Lahela
June 16th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Sorry but your wrong, a woman's attractiveness is one of the main weapons in her arsenal when it comes to getting her way. You dont see men falling over themselves to do favours for big fat munters, its the nubile young filly's who get the attention and lead the stalions round by metaphorical rings through their noses.

Yes, because men are basically brain dead bags of testosterone who are too thick to see anything beyond a nice complexion and a big rack. :rolleyes: The saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind.

Every human being is a manipulator to some degree, in some situations. Just because some women use their looks to manipulate some men does not mean that generalisations can be thrown around about genders as some kind of spurious proof of argument.

Shai Hulud
June 16th, 2010, 03:15 AM
Women dont HAVE to use their looks to be manipulative, as someone else has already pointed out in the thread, men automaticaly react more favourably to attractive women than heifers, its geneticaly built in to them, part of the reproductive / evolutionary process. The point im trying to make here is that coming from her social background, Chloe will have been well versed in the skills of manipulating others to get what she wants, wether that involves batting her eyelids, flashing some cleavage or playing the guilt trip card.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 16th, 2010, 03:42 AM
SH,


Sorry but your wrong, a woman's attractiveness is one of the main weapons in her arsenal when it comes to getting her way. You dont see men falling over themselves to do favours for big fat munters, its the nubile young filly's who get the attention and lead the stalions round by metaphorical rings through their noses.

Here's the problem with your statement. You are confusing "may" with "will". Because a woman is physically attractive it may mean she may be more manipulative. You are also confusing an increased possibility of success with the willingness to manipulate.

It is an overgeneralization to say that because attractive women may be more successful at manipulating men they will necessarily be more manipulative. The only point you have for certian is that everyone will sub-consciously manipulate but that you can't pin on how attractive someone is. It's something everyone does because we all, presumably, happen to be human.

SupremeLegate
June 16th, 2010, 05:13 AM
SH,
we all, presumably, happen to be human.

How dare you call me Human! ;)

Shai Hulud
June 16th, 2010, 06:56 AM
SH,



Here's the problem with your statement. You are confusing "may" with "will". Because a woman is physically attractive it may mean she may be more manipulative. You are also confusing an increased possibility of success with the willingness to manipulate.

It is an overgeneralization to say that because attractive women may be more successful at manipulating men they will necessarily be more manipulative. The only point you have for certian is that everyone will sub-consciously manipulate but that you can't pin on how attractive someone is. It's something everyone does because we all, presumably, happen to be human.

Semantics :)

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 16th, 2010, 07:07 AM
Wow... so rigid.

I'm not even going to attack the "every attractive woman is manipulative" stance, becuase it's simply incomplete.

Every human being is manipulative. We all know how to do it, and we've all done it. Suggesting that attractive people do it by default because they're attractive... well, I don't see how you win there. Do they stop being attractive? Chloe, by nature of being attractive will have men offer to do things for her, but she has no say in the matter. True, she could get angry every time it happens... but until she meets every man on the planet, it's not going to stop.

Attractive men do the same thing. How many will flat out tell a woman, they're not interested? No, most of them will have their fun either through conversation or "other activities." Like women, men like their ego's stroked too.

And it's not like unattractive people are saintly either. Lets look straight at Eli (although David Blue is not an unattractive man, the role of Eli is meant to have "looks" issues). Does he actually TALK to Chloe when she makes him angry? No, he manipulates her into asking him what's wrong by simply being a jerk. He could have just said, "why did you distract me."

And not to put too fine a point on it, but everyone here has dated, right? I mean, is that experience even remotely real? Sure, you might find a few people who are "real" the first date, but the entire idea of "first impression" tends to steer that event into the entire realm of manipulation.

Just saying... manipulative people... well, yea!

"Sometimes grownups do that."green :) As a species, yes, we're manipulative. Singling out any person for it when it's something we all do to an extent? That doesn't sit right with me. I think personal issues are clouding the question at hand here.


Actually its quite true. Remember, women are the masters of psychological warfare.That's a crock, flat out. As a species, we've all practiced psychological warfare, at least as long as we've practiced the conventional kind.


Yes, because men are basically brain dead bags of testosterone who are too thick to see anything beyond a nice complexion and a big rack. :rolleyes: The saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind.

Every human being is a manipulator to some degree, in some situations. Just because some women use their looks to manipulate some men does not mean that generalisations can be thrown around about genders as some kind of spurious proof of argument.You raise a valid point here. Every time there is a statement like "all beautiful women are manipulators", there's a flip side to that statement, one that is pretty scornful of men as well. If women are manipulators, are men all stupid and led around by their 'baser' instincts and so easy to manipulate by anyone that smiles at them? Why is it so hard to believe that Chloe wishes for genuine friendship? That anyone would?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 16th, 2010, 08:01 AM
SH,

Please explain how my points are mere semantics and not substantive. Saying X is true of subset Y but not pointing out it is true because it is true of the entire set is disenguine at best.

Kaiphantom
June 16th, 2010, 08:31 AM
Yes, everyone uses what they have to get what they want. Not all of them do it consciously, which I think is the big hang-up people like Ser Scot A Ellison aren't quite getting. It means they aren't directly aware of it, but due to the basic psychological reward/punishment system, they take subconscious advantage of it.

This is settled science, there should be no debate about this unless you are a psychologist with compelling contrary evidence.

As the basic evidence, I brought up pavlov's dogs. My old psych teacher in college told us this story, about how another class and teacher got caught up in this. The previous pysch teacher had a habit of standing behind the podium on the right side of the stage, so the students decided to do an experiment. Their goal was to get him out from behind the podium to the left side of the stage, with his hand in his shirt, without him really realizing it.

How did they accomplish this?

The subconscious reward system. Public speakers are rewarded when they notice people listening, so everytime he moved away from the podium, the class would look up and pay rapt attention as one. When he moved back, they'd lower their heads or pretend disinterest. This system of subconscious reward and attention got him all the way to the left side of the stage with his hand on partway up his chest(taking many weeks), before they explained to the professor what they had been doing to him.

As humans, when we get rewarded for actions, we tend to repeat them. Due to evolution, we have evolved specific traits which help us attract mates, and we do a lot of them on a subconscious level. If you really pay attention to girls near guys they like, you'll see they have small, subtle actions they engage in, that they mostly aren't even aware of. Why do they do it? Partly because of genetics, and partly because it's worked before. On a subconscious level, they were rewarded when they batted their eyelashes at a guy without realizing, because the guy was friendlier to her and was more willing to do things for her.

So the point, is the fact that Chloe is like this, whether she realizes it or not. There is no debate about this, because practically every woman is like this. Men have their own things, but they aren't nearly as successful at it as women are. Men rely on accumulating wealth and power to manipulate, and not every man has power. Scott has power being the #2 dog and physically well-off, thus why Chloe was attracted to him on a subconscious level. Her genes are telling her, "This is the guy you want to procreate with, because he has the power to protect you, and sire strong children!"

This has been the way for thousands of years, all the way back to caveman days.

Chloe is also part of the high-class social circle *and* political circles, where bigger manipulative games are played. She'd naturally pick up some of it, even if she wasn't aware of it; but she'd have to be good to even survive.

Whether you think she is consciously doing it or not, is a matter of opinion and can be debated. But the fact is, she *is* doing it. The actress saying those lines and giving off that emotion, is doing it because it feels natural and seems to make sense to her.

Because of very real psychological science, and thousands of years of evolutionary biology.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 16th, 2010, 09:13 AM
Kai,

I agreed sub-conscious manipulation is something everyone engages in. That is an indictment of humanity as a whole not just attractive females.

Kaiphantom
June 16th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Kai,

I argreed sub-conscious manipulation is something everyone engages in. That is an indictment of humanity as a whole not just attractive females.

Then you agree that Chloe is doing this, whether she is aware of this or not.

I'd also state the follow-on that I touched on earlier: women are more successful manipulators overall then men, due to the factors that allow them their advantages. Especially over socially awkward nerds.

Put the pieces of the puzzle together, and you see exactly what Chloe is doing, and who holds the advantage there. It's why I've argued for a long time that Eli (and Scott) need to turn their back on her. When she learns she can no longer get what she wants straight away from people, she'll grow as a character.

Blackhole
June 16th, 2010, 12:46 PM
It's really not; studies of human behavior would show you otherwise. If it helps, people in general are manipulative. They use what they have to get what they want.

Not all of them do it consciously, as I noted in my post, which means they simply do it subconsciously. If you really don't believe this, look up pavlov's dogs sometime. It's scientifically proven. You don't have to believe science, though.

How about I phrase it this way? "Attractive women are generally conditioned to use their beauty to their advantage, because of reactions to their beauty as they are growing up."

I agree and it is completely in align with the points I was making earlier in this thread.

Blackhole
June 16th, 2010, 01:15 PM
Kai,

I argreed sub-conscious manipulation is something everyone engages in. That is an indictment of humanity as a whole not just attractive females.

You are arguing nits.

Kaiphantom said: “All attractive women are manipulative to some degree, though not all of them do it consciously.”

It is possible that there exist an extremely small percentage of attractive women that this statement doesn’t apply to. There could be one in a monastery in Tibet some place. Just because one exists doesn’t invalidate the statement for most cases.

Also, he rephrased the statement to: "Attractive women are generally conditioned to use their beauty to their advantage, because of reactions to their beauty as they are growing up."

Numerous scientific studies have shown that attractive people are considered more accomplished, brighter, and generally more desirable solely by virtue of their appearance alone. It is a fact.

All other thing being equal, an attractive woman growing up is going to have more social perks than someone less attractive. It may not be fair but it is true. It would be impossible for them not to take advantage of them at least occasionally.

Obviously there exist some attractive women that work very hard not to be manipulative. But in general I think more attractive women tend to be more manipulative then less attractive women all other traits being equal. The simple fact remains they will have far more social perks throughout their lives and will take advantage of them at least occasionally.

I would also extend the statement to attractive people but I also agree that it applies more to women. In out culture attractiveness is emphasized more with the female than with the male.

aretood2
June 16th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Sorry but your wrong, a woman's attractiveness is one of the main weapons in her arsenal when it comes to getting her way. You dont see men falling over themselves to do favours for big fat munters, its the nubile young filly's who get the attention and lead the stalions round by metaphorical rings through their noses.
First of all...*vomits* Okay...Now you managed to use Mysandry and Misogyny...nice touch. Let me tell you a little secret...not all men are obsessed with sex. And let's not forget how manipulative some attractive men are.


Not every attractive woman will want to manipulate every man... in fact most men won't interest them. But you'd better believe that attractive women are perfectly aware of the effect they (can) have on any man they come across. It's a two way street of course, most man voluntarily bend themselves backwards for attractive women and try to anticipate their needs before any manipulation could even start. Then when she makes clear what the limits of the relationship are many men feel they were being lead on, when in fact they weren't necessarily being manipulated.
Many men would ignore an attractive woman who is to high maintenance...well the smart ones will anyway. You see "courting" a woman involves doing things for her to close the deal, like being extra nice and accommodating. Once the deal is made, most men expect things to be a two way street or it's the highway. Oh and this is why some men cheat, because some women don't understand that men like to be chased.

Yes, because men are basically brain dead bags of testosterone who are too thick to see anything beyond a nice complexion and a big rack. :rolleyes: The saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind.

Every human being is a manipulator to some degree, in some situations. Just because some women use their looks to manipulate some men does not mean that generalisations can be thrown around about genders as some kind of spurious proof of argument.
And some men use their looks to manipulate some women. It's nice to meet a smart poster :)

Women dont HAVE to use their looks to be manipulative, as someone else has already pointed out in the thread, men automaticaly react more favourably to attractive women than heifers, its geneticaly built in to them, part of the reproductive / evolutionary process. The point im trying to make here is that coming from her social background, Chloe will have been well versed in the skills of manipulating others to get what she wants, wether that involves batting her eyelids, flashing some cleavage or playing the guilt trip card.
Once again, not all men are sex crazed dogs. Some use and abuse women like if they were pets. It's a two way street.

Replicator Todd
June 16th, 2010, 02:47 PM
First of all...*vomits* Okay...Now you managed to use Mysandry and Misogyny...nice touch. Let me tell you a little secret...men are not obsessed with sex. And let's not forget how manipulative attractive men are.




Not all men you mean! I'm a guy and I loathe nudity and sexual content in just about anything.

aretood2
June 16th, 2010, 02:51 PM
Not all men you mean! I'm a guy and I loathe nudity and sexual content in just about anything.

Yes, I forgot to add that small part :P. I'll have to fix that. But yeah, there are a lot of men who would be and are turned away from such things. Men who hate women who play hard to get, men who only "bend over backwards" for attractive women but expect the same treatment in return and if they don't get the exact treatment said attractive women will find themselves alone pretty quickly.

Replicator Todd
June 16th, 2010, 02:58 PM
Yes, I forgot to add that small part :P. I'll have to fix that. But yeah, there are a lot of men who would be and are turned away from such things. Men who hate women who play hard to get, men who only "bend over backwards" for attractive women but expect the same treatment in return and if they don't get the exact treatment said attractive women will find themselves alone pretty quickly.

See, most of my friends are girls, which actually I prefer over having guys as friends. And the very idea of a romantic relationship is.....well....scary. I find it odd so many people don't understand that Chloe means what she says. And i'm a little annoyed how Eli acted towards it...just a little. I think it is possible to care about one's best friend more so than a boy/girl friend.

aretood2
June 16th, 2010, 03:04 PM
See, most of my friends are girls, which actually I prefer over having guys as friends. And the very idea of a romantic relationship is.....well....scary. I find it odd so many people don't understand that Chloe means what she says. And i'm a little annoyed how Eli acted towards it...just a little. I think it is possible to care about one's best friend more so than a boy/girl friend.
I agree with you, however if there is a romantic attractions I seriously doubt that a stable full blown friendship is possible without having hurt feelings and so on. Unrequited love is not healthy, especially when you deal with the person that you love on a regular basis. Could they be casual friends...that's tricky.

Eli will always want something else, he doesn't want to be her friend. Couples are not friends. I mean, have you seen shows like Scrubs? JD and turk are best friends and like to be with each other sometimes at the expense of their girlfriends, who later become wives. Same thing on Star Trek DS9, that Doctor dude, Basher?, and O'brian. They were closer to each other than O'Brian was with his wife. Friendships can turn into brotherhoods, but that's like Brother/Sister type thing.

Can you imagine loving your Sister romantically? :S

This is basically what you would be asking Eli to do, to treat his love as a sibling love and not as a romantic love. Unless he gets over that romantic aspect, it will always be sour.

PG15
June 21st, 2010, 11:57 AM
Can I get something straight here? Since she's pretty much always going to be attractive, and will always have a poly-sci background, are you guys saying that she will remain manipulative and all that jazz even if Eli and Scott turn away from her and/or she grows as a character? Are you condemning her from now until forever just because she has, and will continue to have a pretty face?

Because that's ****ed up.



Mattsilver 3k, Coronach, PG15, I expected better of you. You don't need to resort to bashing of people who disagree with you. You don't need to make fun of, and knowingly distort the arguments being made, as a way to mock an honest conversation.

Sometimes only mocking can reveal the hidden truth. Just ask satirists.

And FYI, I've been doing this for years. :p

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 21st, 2010, 12:12 PM
PG15


Can I get something straight here? Since she's pretty much always going to be attractive, and will always have a poly-sci background, are you guys saying that she will remain manipulative and all that jazz even if Eli and Scott turn away from her and/or she grows as a character? Are you condemning her from now until forever just because she has, and will continue to have a pretty face?

Because that's ****ed up.




You are dead on with this post. Condeming people for being attractive is absurd. Believing they are going to be manipulative because they are attractive is insulting at best. It's an example of the BS of Determinism run wild.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 21st, 2010, 12:37 PM
I've tried to green both yourself and PG15 for this, but alas :)
mental green it shall be!

PG15
June 21st, 2010, 12:58 PM
No problem, we'll just green each other. :D

Kaiphantom
June 21st, 2010, 03:28 PM
Can I get something straight here? Since she's pretty much always going to be attractive, and will always have a poly-sci background, are you guys saying that she will remain manipulative and all that jazz even if Eli and Scott turn away from her and/or she grows as a character? Are you condemning her from now until forever just because she has, and will continue to have a pretty face?

No, don't be dense. If you thought about it, you'd realize that wouldn't be the case, because people's looks diminish as they age. Cue the women who survive on their beauty, then get desperate as they get older because they can no longer get by on looks. Then cue the endless plastic surgery, facelifts, etc. There are also older women *do* tend to mature and realize what kind of effects they have, and reign it in. Chloe is still young and immature; she's already realized she had shallow friends and was just like them. She'll learn more as she gets older.


Sometimes only mocking can reveal the hidden truth. Just ask satirists.

There is a big difference between satire, and outright flaming people for their beliefs. Your earlier comments fell into the latter category. Although it does make one feel better about the harm they cause, if they realize they can just try to laugh it off later "as a joke/satire." How about if I do this?

"LOL at people who have no experience with women. One of these days, they'll get out of their parents basement and interact with females and realize that they are easily manipulated. :P"

It's just satire, guys!

PG15
June 21st, 2010, 04:14 PM
No, don't be dense. If you thought about it, you'd realize that wouldn't be the case, because people's looks diminish as they age. Cue the women who survive on their beauty, then get desperate as they get older because they can no longer get by on looks. Then cue the endless plastic surgery, facelifts, etc. There are also older women *do* tend to mature and realize what kind of effects they have, and reign it in. Chloe is still young and immature; she's already realized she had shallow friends and was just like them. She'll learn more as she gets older.

Yeah, obviously their looks diminish, but my point is that, for the time being no matter what she does to make herself a better person, her appearance won't change (much) and thus will indicate to some people here that she's a manipulative witch, at least until her looks diminish, apparently.

Let me ask you this: what can Chloe do to "reign it in"?


There is a big difference between satire, and outright flaming people for their beliefs. Your earlier comments fell into the latter category.

Nah. I merely put forward a distilled version of what I believed to be the basis of their arguments. If people deem it false, then go ahead and refute it. Go ahead and tell me that you have never been in Eli's position of being friendzoned by a hot girl and yet you still think beautiful women are manipulative and out to get the less fair sex. I can tell you though that I have been in Eli's position many times and it's very easy to see all beautiful women as representing those that rejected me, but for the most part I am aware that that is a biased conclusion specifically because of my experiences.

At the end of the day though, you know what they say about satire: your millage may vary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourMileageMayVary). You say it flames posters for their beliefs, I say it merely points it out in a blunt fashion. There's really no point arguing about it.



"LOL at people who have no experience with women. One of these days, they'll get out of their parents basement and interact with females and realize that they are easily manipulated. :P"

It's just satire, guys!

Like I said, your mileage may vary.

Kaiphantom
June 21st, 2010, 05:04 PM
Yeah, obviously their looks diminish, but my point is that, for the time being no matter what she does to make herself a better person, her appearance won't change (much) and thus will indicate to some people here that she's a manipulative witch, at least until her looks diminish, apparently.

Let me ask you this: what can Chloe do to "reign it in"?

People also develop things called "morals." They recognize that they are getting things they shouldn't normally deserve, just because of certain actions. Like a young woman getting pulled over for speeding by a cop, and honestly feeling bad that they messed up, and so start to cry, and the cop suddenly feels like he shouldn't give her a ticket anyway. As she grows older, she learns to feel guilt about such an action, and act better because of it. The next time she gets pulled over, she doesn't cry.

If that didn't answer your question, then more bluntly, Chloe would say something like this to Eli: "I'm sorry, I ask a lot of you, and I don't do much in return. I want to make it up to you, to really prove I care about you and am glad for everything you've done for me." That's one thing. For another, she could find something regular to do on the ship to contribute. She could do things in return for people. She could show some sign that she's aware that she's gotten things solely because of her charm or political maneuvering, that she doesn't want special treatment (I'm looking at you, Chloe in "Pain").

Quite a few women get to that stage, and when they do, they end up saying something like "Don't treat me any different just because I'm a girl."


Nah. I merely put forward a distilled version of what I believed to be the basis of their arguments. If people deem it false, then go ahead and refute it.

That only works, if what you believe to be their points, were actually their points. When you get it wrong, it merely makes you look like an A-hole. It would be like me saying, "Silly people, and their belief that Chloe can do no wrong because she's a hot lookin' girl!" We both know that's not your viewpoint, and so I'm misrepresenting it in an ad hominen attack. That's not conducive to a healthy debate, and shows you aren't taking your debate opponents seriously. That's disrespective and A-hole-ish behavior, because no healthy debate can happen if one side is blowing off the other side.

It can't be easily dismissed with a YMMV. Belittling has no place in an honest debate, period.


Go ahead and tell me that you have never been in Eli's position of being friendzoned by a hot girl and yet you still think beautiful women are manipulative and out to get the less fair sex. I can tell you though that I have been in Eli's position many times and it's very easy to see all beautiful women as representing those that rejected me, but for the most part I am aware that that is a biased conclusion specifically because of my experiences.

I've been friend-zoned. I've also had honestly good female friends, some I liked, and some I didn't. The good ones did a lot for me in return, walking the walk, and showing me through action that I was a valued friend. The bad ones just talked, but didn't back it up. And the moment I was no longer useful, or slightly inconvenient, they dropped me. I learned very well, how to recognize who was being manipulative, and who was honestly trying to care about me.

You can see it with Chloe, when she tells him over and over that he is a good friend, or a close friend. The emphasis is always on her. Never does she say, "I don't think I've been as good a friend to you, as you have to me" or "I want to be your close friend, too." She's still approaching it from a selfish angle.

jmoz
June 21st, 2010, 05:20 PM
Eli should just do an eye for an eye thing. He needs to just dump her, he deserves better.

Kaiphantom
June 21st, 2010, 05:27 PM
Eli should just do an eye for an eye thing. He needs to just dump her, he deserves better.

Heh, I agree. :P Been saying that all along. It'll actually be good for Chloe, as she'll realize that if she truly values someone, she needs to show it with action, not just words.

jmoz
June 21st, 2010, 05:30 PM
Heh, I agree. :P Been saying that all along. It'll actually be good for Chloe, as she'll realize that if she truly values someone, she needs to show it with action, not just words.

Superficializes (yes I know that's not a word) Chloe and Scott's relationship if Eli is her emotional/friendship rock.

PG15
June 21st, 2010, 05:54 PM
That's one thing. For another, she could find something regular to do on the ship to contribute. She could do things in return for people. She could show some sign that she's aware that she's gotten things solely because of her charm or political maneuvering, that she doesn't want special treatment (I'm looking at you, Chloe in "Pain").

Well, she has tried to do things to contribute, like with helping TJ with removing Franklin's bullet, getting food, and going offworld. There was also the bit in Pain where she asked Young whether there's anything she can do to help, so she's trying. That said, I would like her to do more, of course.

The one problem I have though is that "She could show some sign that she's aware that she's gotten things solely because of her charm or political maneuvering" presumes that she did those things. I can understand the charm, but what political maneuvering has she done?


Quite a few women get to that stage, and when they do, they end up saying something like "Don't treat me any different just because I'm a girl."

But how has Chloe been treated differently just because she's a girl? I don't think the Eli thing counts - he's not treating her that way because she's a girl, he's treating her that way because he loves her.


That only works, if what you believe to be their points, were actually their points. When you get it wrong, it merely makes you look like an A-hole. It would be like me saying, "Silly people, and their belief that Chloe can do no wrong because she's a hot lookin' girl!" We both know that's not your viewpoint, and so I'm misrepresenting it in an ad hominen attack. That's not conducive to a healthy debate, and shows you aren't taking your debate opponents seriously. That's disrespective and A-hole-ish behavior, because no healthy debate can happen if one side is blowing off the other side.

It can't be easily dismissed with a YMMV. Belittling has no place in an honest debate, period.

Well, I wasn't really debating at the time. That was my first post in this thread and I didn't even respond to anyone "on the other side" in particular. I just posted some thoughts regarding the debate so far.

Points such as these aren't really conscious. Like with certain biases, they are more subconscious and they usually need someone stating it bluntly to make them realize it, if it's true. Again, if it's false for some, then they can feel free to challenge me, like you have.


You can see it with Chloe, when she tells him over and over that he is a good friend, or a close friend. The emphasis is always on her. Never does she say, "I don't think I've been as good a friend to you, as you have to me" or "I want to be your close friend, too." She's still approaching it from a selfish angle.

Hmm. Interesting. I never thought about it that way.

Veeeery interesting.

Kaiphantom
June 21st, 2010, 06:25 PM
Well, she has tried to do things to contribute, like with helping TJ with removing Franklin's bullet, getting food, and going offworld. There was also the bit in Pain where she asked Young whether there's anything she can do to help, so she's trying. That said, I would like her to do more, of course.

We'd be rehashing old arguments, but suffice it to say, they were a lot of one-offs (which kinda hints that she can't be bothered to stick to anything), or cases where she could go to a nice world and enjoy the fresh atmosphere. A real test would be a more inhospitable, like in Air part 3, where she goes to help out. She needs to be shown stretching out into uncomfortable areas that she normally wouldn't go, in order to help people. And like most people have said, a regular duty would go a decent ways toward that.


The one problem I have though is that "She could show some sign that she's aware that she's gotten things solely because of her charm or political maneuvering" presumes that she did those things. I can understand the charm, but what political maneuvering has she done?

It's sometimes hard to separate charm from political maneuvering, because at it's base, political maneuvering is understanding how to manipulate people into getting them to do what you want, or them getting you what you want. Charm can be very much a part of that.


But how has Chloe been treated differently just because she's a girl? I don't think the Eli thing counts - he's not treating her that way because she's a girl, he's treating her that way because he loves her.

It's partially hard to see sometimes, because we're given the impression there are other civilians on the ship that have no real skills. I don't think it's really the case, as I think all civilians would be scientists, or janitors at least, and thus actually doing something. But it appears no one is giving Chloe any kind nudging into doing some regular duty on the ship. They give her a free pass. It was a bit jarring in Life, when everyone else was apparently being forced into running and heavy exercises... except for Chloe. How did she get out of that?


Well, I wasn't really debating at the time. That was my first post in this thread and I didn't even respond to anyone "on the other side" in particular. I just posted some thoughts regarding the debate so far.

I'll partially give that to you, but my initial comments weren't directed solely at you, but to other people who, while I may disagree with, I know they've been better debaters in other threads. I felt it was harmful to their character.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 05:37 AM
jmoz,


Eli should just do an eye for an eye thing. He needs to just dump her, he deserves better.

How can Eli "dump" Chloe, they are not and have never been a couple? I watched "500 Days of Summer" over the weekend. It reinforced my opinion that you can't and shouldn't attempt to force someone to love you. The feeling is there or it's not. If it's not it is quite sad for the person in the unrequited position but it cannot be helped. Attempting to force it just makes things worse.

I look back with great embarassement on an incident in my own life when I attempted to push a friendship into romantic territory. She didn't want to go there and I got angry and said some very harsh things. It posioned our friendship from that point forward. Romantice love can't be forced. Nor is it real love if it is forced.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 06:45 AM
How can Eli "dump" Chloe, they are not and have never been a couple?

As in, find himself to be busy when she comes around, don't do anything else for her, etc. You can dump someone from a friendship.


I watched "500 Days of Summer" over the weekend. It reinforced my opinion that you can't and shouldn't attempt to force someone to love you. The feeling is there or it's not. If it's not it is quite sad for the person in the unrequited position but it cannot be helped. Attempting to force it just makes things worse.

I look back with great embarassement on an incident in my own life when I attempted to push a friendship into romantic territory. She didn't want to go there and I got angry and said some very harsh things. It posioned our friendship from that point forward. Romantice love can't be forced. Nor is it real love if it is forced.

Not sure why you're saying this; no one has said Chloe should be forced to love Eli. Indeed, people like me have said that Eli should forget about her.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 06:51 AM
Kai,

No, but many are saying or implying she owes Eli something more. She doesn't. Friends don't owe each other friendship. It's not a contract.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 07:25 AM
Kai,

No, but many are saying or implying she owes Eli something more. She doesn't. Friends don't owe each other friendship. It's not a contract.

True enough, friends don't "owe" each other anything, but consider this....

I'm poor, sick, and injured. I look to you, my friend, and you help me get better, give me a place to live, support me while I heal. You go further, getting me a job, continuing to support me during hard times. Eventually, it comes to a point where I am well off, and you aren't. I don't owe you anything, do I? Because we're friends. And so, because I owe you nothing, I don't do anything for you.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 07:33 AM
Kai,


True enough, friends don't "owe" each other anything, but consider this....

I'm poor, sick, and injured. I look to you, my friend, and you help me get better, give me a place to live, support me while I heal. You go further, getting me a job, continuing to support me during hard times. Eventually, it comes to a point where I am well off, and you aren't. I don't owe you anything, do I? Because we're friends. And so, because I owe you nothing, I don't do anything for you.

I agree that person wouldn't be much of a friend. However, to extrapolate and claim Chloe has done nothing for Eli is going too far. She's there for him doing "friendly" things. I don't know what she can give him that would show her friendship that he hasn't already given him.

Another point. There are pretty big time gaps between episodes in this series. To say Eli does nothing but follow Chloe like a puppy is going too far. They seem to have a pretty good friendship. We just aren't seeing everything that passes between them.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 08:33 AM
I agree that person wouldn't be much of a friend. However, to extrapolate and claim Chloe has done nothing for Eli is going too far. She's there for him doing "friendly" things. I don't know what she can give him that would show her friendship that he hasn't already given him.

What friendly things? Where has she gone out of her way to do something nice for him? I mean, we can pull up tons of stuff Eli has done, going all the way back to the showers in Darkness.


Another point. There are pretty big time gaps between episodes in this series. To say Eli does nothing but follow Chloe like a puppy is going too far. They seem to have a pretty good friendship. We just aren't seeing everything that passes between them.

While true, you can't base an argument on "Well, um, it has to happen when we don't see it, yeah!" Because, for all we know, she still does nothing for him in the times we don't see, either. You can only base your argument on what we've seen.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 08:39 AM
Kai,

I presume that Eli is a reasonably intellegent guy who wouldn't follow Chloe around like a puppy if he wasn't getting something from their friendship. It's simply not everything he wants.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 08:41 AM
KI presume that Eli is a reasonably intellegent guy who wouldn't follow Chloe around like a puppy if he wasn't getting something from their friendship. It's simply not everything he wants.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone will follow another around like a puppy? Eli is a nerd. Trust me when I say many a nerd will follow a woman around who is kind to them, without getting anything in return. Merely the "hope" of something. And some are genuinely trying to be friendly by doing things without asking anything in return, and get used.

So what is your evidence that Eli is not like this? Because so far, with the way the evidence is stacking up, it's indicating Eli is such a nerd with a very high probability.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 08:46 AM
Kai,


Why is it so hard to believe that someone will follow another around like a puppy? Eli is a nerd. Trust me when I say many a nerd will follow a woman around who is kind to them, without getting anything in return. Merely the "hope" of something. And some are genuinely trying to be friendly by doing things without asking anything in return, and get used.

So what is your evidence that Eli is not like this? Because so far, with the way the evidence is stacking up, it's indicating Eli is such a nerd with a very high probability.

If she's kind to him, he's not getting nothing. He's getting kindness and companionship. That's a basis for friendship.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 10:19 AM
If she's kind to him, he's not getting nothing. He's getting kindness and companionship. That's a basis for friendship.

In my example above, I could be "kind" to you while still not doing anything for you. And yet you'd still say I'd be a bad friend for it. What "kindness" is Chloe showing? Hanging out with him? Allowing him to talk to her? That's some mighty good kindness, to repay everything he's done for her.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 12:11 PM
Kai,


In my example above, I could be "kind" to you while still not doing anything for you. And yet you'd still say I'd be a bad friend for it. What "kindness" is Chloe showing? Hanging out with him? Allowing him to talk to her? That's some mighty good kindness, to repay everything he's done for her.

You can't be kind to someone without doing for them from time to time. Kindness is more that being nice to someone's face. And yes, hanging out with him, when she has little else she can offer him while on the ship is an act of friendship.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 04:56 PM
You can't be kind to someone without doing for them from time to time. Kindness is more that being nice to someone's face. And yes, hanging out with him, when she has little else she can offer him while on the ship is an act of friendship.

So, you agree Chloe isn't being a friend or being "kind" to Eli? Because in my example, if I don't do anything for you, except for hang out with you, I think you'd agree I wasn't being kind. And so far, all you've offered for Chloe is that she hangs out with him. Yeah, seeing as how there are few people on the ship her age, or can relate to her, it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice for her.

Krazeh
June 22nd, 2010, 06:08 PM
So spending time with someone because you genuinely enjoy their company and you get on well isn't being "kind" or worthy of being called friendship? You have to go out of your way to physically do something for someone, and judging from some posts on this thread have it be detrimental to you, for you to qualify as a friend?

As it is other than in real emergencies, i.e. being initially stranded on Destiny and having been shot, I can't recall Eli doing a huge amount for Chloe other than the simple act of spending time with her. Why is it some people are so quick to portray Chloe as some sort of manipulative ***** for trying to find a friend during what would have likely been an extremely unsettling and frightening experience of being stranded billions of light years away from home and for then having the absolute cheek to get shot in the leg and nearly die?

The simple case is Eli and Chloe are both of similar ages, neither of them come from a scientific or military background and neither of them were part of the Icarus project before they ended up on the Destiny. It was only natural that out of everyone on board they would feel like they had the most in common and would look to create a friendship. I fail to see where Chloe manipulated Eli in the first instance into becoming her friend or has manipulated him at any later point to do something she wanted but he had no interest in doing before she mentioned it.

And in response to the thread title, no Chloe's friendship isn't a runner-up prize. I think the whole point of the scene was to make it clear how much Chloe values Eli and that while she does not have romantic/sexual feelings for him she does truly love him as a friend.

Kaiphantom
June 22nd, 2010, 07:21 PM
So spending time with someone because you genuinely enjoy their company and you get on well isn't being "kind" or worthy of being called friendship? You have to go out of your way to physically do something for someone, and judging from some posts on this thread have it be detrimental to you, for you to qualify as a friend?

Scroll up to my example, and you tell me. To make it easy, I'll repost:

I'm poor, sick, and injured. I look to you, my friend, and you help me get better, give me a place to live, support me while I heal. You go further, getting me a job, continuing to support me during hard times. Eventually, it comes to a point where I am well off, and you aren't. I don't owe you anything, do I? Because we're friends. And so, because I owe you nothing, I don't do anything for you. Except maybe hang out with you occasionally.

You think I'm a good friend?

jmoz
June 22nd, 2010, 07:31 PM
One sided friendship.

Eli's just smitten (hormones) cause that's probably the first girl he's seen and talked to in a while. Still waiting for it to wear off.

Krazeh
June 22nd, 2010, 07:36 PM
Scroll up to my example, and you tell me. To make it easy, I'll repost:

I'm poor, sick, and injured. I look to you, my friend, and you help me get better, give me a place to live, support me while I heal. You go further, getting me a job, continuing to support me during hard times. Eventually, it comes to a point where I am well off, and you aren't. I don't owe you anything, do I? Because we're friends. And so, because I owe you nothing, I don't do anything for you. Except maybe hang out with you occasionally.

You think I'm a good friend?

Frankly on such little information it'd be impossible to make a judgement one way or another. There's absolutely no information about the basis of the friendship, the interactions between the people involved, how they each view each other, what they may or may not expect, or think the other expects of them. A friendship isn't as simple as you do things for me and i'll do things for you, nor can it be deconstructed to such a simple level as you've tried to do. I do however get the feeling you're wanting me, or indeed anyone else looking at it, to say that no you wouldn't be a good friend and that this would then somehow be proof that Chloe isn't a good friend to Eli.

And that's not to mention that your example bears no relation to anything we've seen in the friendship between Chloe and Eli. It hasn't been the case that Eli's been supporting Chloe in any fashion like the one you've described, nor is it the case that Chloe could now be considered to be "well off" while Eli is "poor" and she has done nothing to help him. Both of them have provided companionship to each other as part of a friendship, just because Eli was in a better emotional state/handled himself better during the initial stranding on Destiny and was able to be someone she could lean on and didn't get himself shot by the LA doesn't mean that he's done nothing but give while she's done nothing but take or that she's somehow manipulating him in some sort of nefarious scheme.


One sided friendship.

Eli's just smitten (hormones) cause that's probably the first girl he's seen and talked to in a while. Still waiting for it to wear off.

Yeah, because all guys like Eli are socially inept and get no, or next to no, attention from any member of the opposite sex so become completely infatuated the second any girl flashes an eyelid at them. I mean there's no way on earth he could possibly handle the attention from someone like Chloe with being reduced to a smitten blushing fool or actually have a proper friendship with her.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 07:47 PM
Kai, Jmoz,

Eli is a bright guy who's skills are valued by people on the ship. His self confidence is improving and he chooses to be Chloe's friend. I assume it's because he gets something out of the friendship.

In Incursion pt 2 I think it's quite clear that Chloe's friendship and affection for Eli is quite genuine. That's quite an act of manipulation to tell him how her friendship isn't a runner's up prize. You keep saying she should sacrifice for Eli. That's exactly what she did when she risked herself to get Eli out of his quarters as the LA was surging from the Gateroom. She could have left him there and run for safer quarters. That's an act of sacrifice.

So, Eli's not a moron, he gets something out of his friendship with Chloe, and Chloe has made an act of sacrifice for Eli. She's not manipulating him. She really wants to be his friend. She simply doesn't have romantic feelings for him. That's not a character flaw.

jmoz
June 22nd, 2010, 07:49 PM
lol, he was playing video games when they introduced his character. And no I wasn't saying he was socially inept. He seems like a really cool guy, his character. He likes her, that's all we know. Why does he like her? He doesn't give any real reasons. And what is he getting out of that friendship? It's mostly Chloe going to Eli to talk about her problems while Eli is doing stuff concerning the Destiny.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 22nd, 2010, 07:53 PM
jmoz,


lol, he was playing video games when they introduced his character. And no I wasn't saying he was socially inept. He seems like a really cool guy, his character. He likes her, that's all we know. Why does he like her? He doesn't give any real reasons. And what is he getting out of that friendship? It's mostly Chloe going to Eli to talk about her problems while Eli is doing stuff concerning the Destiny.

What does anyone get out of a random friendship? You enjoy their company and conversation. It's something you can't define. As I said before it's not quid pro quo situation.

Krazeh
June 22nd, 2010, 07:59 PM
jmoz,



What does anyone get out of a random friendship? You enjoy their company and conversation. It's something you can't define. As I said before it's not quid pro quo situation.

Greened. I'm amazed at the number of people here who seem to think that friendships need to have some sort of ulterior motive to them or that people can't be friends until they've made some sort of sacrifice. I'm also amazed by the generalisations that guys like Eli can't handle attention from women and become easily led smitten fools if one so much flutters an eyelid at him, or that all women, especially the attractive ones, are manipulative harpies who are incapable of having any feelings for any other human being and use them solely to further their own goals.

jelgate
June 22nd, 2010, 08:13 PM
Greened. I'm amazed at the number of people here who seem to think that friendships need to have some sort of ulterior motive to them or that people can't be friends until they've made some sort of sacrifice. I'm also amazed by the generalisations that guys like Eli can't handle attention from women and become easily led smitten fools if one so much flutters an eyelid at him, or that all women, especially the attractive ones, are manipulative harpies who are incapable of having any feelings for any other human being and use them solely to further their own goals.
Its not friendship if that happens. Friendship doesn't really exist if it require a person to do something for them.

Krazeh
June 22nd, 2010, 08:20 PM
Its not friendship if that happens. Friendship doesn't really exist if it require a person to do something for them.

Indeed. Acts of compassion and/or sacrifice may take place as part of the friendship but the friendship itself isn't, or shouldn't be, dependent on them.

escyos
June 22nd, 2010, 08:22 PM
i hate getting the friends speech. you dont feel like runner up, more of coming in last place.. id imagine eli is feelign that too

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 23rd, 2010, 03:48 AM
escyos,


i hate getting the friends speech. you dont feel like runner up, more of coming in last place.. id imagine eli is feelign that too

No one likes getting the "friends" talk. It feels like rejection. However, the older I get the more I look back and recognize that I'd much rather the person for whom I had a crush be honest about their feelings for me. What you "want" from someone is not always what they want or are in a position to give even if they may want it too. That life. It's better to move on than remain and obsess. I say this an individual who was friendzoned any number of times in my youth and stayed there to obsess. It's a really bad place to stay.

Everyone jumping on Chloe needs to see "500 Days of Summer". It is a beautiful illustration of why being friendzoned is not a "runner-up prize" no matter how much it might feel that way.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 23rd, 2010, 06:41 AM
So spending time with someone because you genuinely enjoy their company and you get on well isn't being "kind" or worthy of being called friendship? You have to go out of your way to physically do something for someone, and judging from some posts on this thread have it be detrimental to you, for you to qualify as a friend? ....


....

What does anyone get out of a random friendship? You enjoy their company and conversation. It's something you can't define. As I said before it's not quid pro quo situation.


...I'm amazed at the number of people here who seem to think that friendships need to have some sort of ulterior motive to them or that people can't be friends until they've made some sort of sacrifice.....


Its not friendship if that happens. Friendship doesn't really exist if it require a person to do something for them.


You've all got it :)
Friendship IS the prize, and real friendship doesn't require quid pro quo. I'd never ask that my friends sacrifice for me. I wouldn't expect them to. Friendship, companionship, kindness. Just being there. I think if you go into it thinking that you're owed something in return for what you're doing, then you're not much of a friend either; it's become something of a mercenary venture, which means that the minute it gets rocky or it's not going to come through for you, you dump them. Real friends don't do that.

Kaiphantom
June 23rd, 2010, 08:18 AM
Ya know, I'm kinda amazed at the wide-eyed idealism and cognitive dissonance going on. Because everyone of you, deep down, if you had a "friend" who you constantly did stuff for, but never did anything in return... you *would* slowly do less and less for them, and get annoyed at them. It's human nature, period. Sure, you might still call them a friend, but deep down, you'd know they were a bad friend.

You recognize that Chloe isn't doing anything for Eli, so the only way you have left to defend it is "oh, um, Eli gets her company out of it, yeah!" It's weak and flimsy, and you know it. No one has been able to name a single thing Chloe has done for Eli.

If you really believe this, then be my friend and start doing things for me. I won't do anything in response, of course, but just give you the benefit of my company and kindness. I'll be waiting, but I know you'll try to weasel out of it, or not respond, or find some other excuse. Don't you want to be friends?

Of course, I see the quid pro quo going on in this thread, among others, every time someone says "Green!" simply because the person agreed. So to deny it, is pretty hypocritical. Everyone who has argued that friends are just friends, green me. I disagree with you, but now is your chance to prove it. Green me and leave your name attached to the green comment so I know it's you. Put your money where your mouth is. ;)

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 23rd, 2010, 08:23 AM
Ya know, I'm kinda amazed at the wide-eyed idealism and cognitive dissonance going on. Because everyone of you, deep down, if you had a "friend" who you constantly did stuff for, but never did anything in return... you *would* slowly do less and less for them, and get annoyed at them. It's human nature, period. Sure, you might still call them a friend, but deep down, you'd know they were a bad friend.

You recognize that Chloe isn't doing anything for Eli, so the only way you have left to defend it is "oh, um, Eli gets her company out of it, yeah!" It's weak and flimsy, and you know it. No one has been able to name a single thing Chloe has done for Eli.

If you really believe this, then be my friend and start doing things for me. I won't do anything in response, of course, but just give you the benefit of my company and kindness. I'll be waiting, but I know you'll try to weasel out of it, or not respond, or find some other excuse. Don't you want to be friends?

Of course, I see the quid pro quo going on in this thread, among others, every time someone says "Green!" simply because the person agreed. So to deny it, is pretty hypocritical. Everyone who has argued that friends are just friends, green me. I disagree with you, but now is your chance to prove it. Green me and leave your name attached to the green comment so I know it's you. Put your money where your mouth is. ;)

It;s not cognitive dissonance, as what you're describing isn't friendship. People seeking to use people isn't friendship. People who will only be with others because of what they can do for them also isn't friendship. My friends don't expect anything out of me other than friendship and the same goes for them. If I were to start expecting that they had to do stuff to deserve, or earn, my friendship, then we're not talking about friendship anymore. Eli isn't owed anything for Chloe's friendship. What Eli chooses to do is his choice.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 23rd, 2010, 09:00 AM
Kai,

So, Chloe didn't get Eli out of his room as the LA was surging from the Gateroom in Incursion Pt. 1 at significant personal risk when she could have just run for safer quarters?

This is not to say she had to do this to prove her friendship but that she did it because she is Eli's friend.

Krazeh
June 23rd, 2010, 09:23 AM
Ya know, I'm kinda amazed at the wide-eyed idealism and cognitive dissonance going on. Because everyone of you, deep down, if you had a "friend" who you constantly did stuff for, but never did anything in return... you *would* slowly do less and less for them, and get annoyed at them. It's human nature, period. Sure, you might still call them a friend, but deep down, you'd know they were a bad friend.

Except what you've described here isn't a friendship in the first place. If you're doing things for someone else in order to get them to return the favour then that's not a friendship, there shouldn't be any expectation of needing to do things for each other.


You recognize that Chloe isn't doing anything for Eli, so the only way you have left to defend it is "oh, um, Eli gets her company out of it, yeah!" It's weak and flimsy, and you know it. No one has been able to name a single thing Chloe has done for Eli.

And what has Eli really done for Chloe in the normal day to day circumstances of living on the Destiny? The major thing he's done for her is take care of her after she got shot in the leg, other than that it's been a case of them both providing companionship to each other. As it is we've not seen Eli put in the situations that Chloe has been put in so she hasn't had a chance to demonstrate that she would go further for her friend, not that it's required for her to do so in order for what they have between them to be considered a friendship.



If you really believe this, then be my friend and start doing things for me. I won't do anything in response, of course, but just give you the benefit of my company and kindness. I'll be waiting, but I know you'll try to weasel out of it, or not respond, or find some other excuse. Don't you want to be friends?

I can't tell if you're being serious and really believe that being friends requires people to do things for each other on a quid pro quo basis. I really hope you're not because if you do then that's a very depressing outlook on life.



Of course, I see the quid pro quo going on in this thread, among others, every time someone says "Green!" simply because the person agreed. So to deny it, is pretty hypocritical. Everyone who has argued that friends are just friends, green me. I disagree with you, but now is your chance to prove it. Green me and leave your name attached to the green comment so I know it's you. Put your money where your mouth is. ;)

I can't speak for anyone else but I green people because I agree with what they have to say. That's the whole point of the reputation system, it's saying "I agree with you". It, for me at least, has nothing to do with wanting anything back or expecting that anyone I green will do likewise to me. And given that I disagree with your statements and outlook on what constitutes friendships I'm hardly going to go ahead and green you.

Kaiphantom
June 23rd, 2010, 12:45 PM
It;s not cognitive dissonance, as what you're describing isn't friendship. People seeking to use people isn't friendship. People who will only be with others because of what they can do for them also isn't friendship..

Thank you. You've described what Chloe does to Eli to a T. Eli fulfils some of Chloe's needs and does a lot for her, that's why she hangs out with him.


So, Chloe didn't get Eli out of his room as the LA was surging from the Gateroom in Incursion Pt. 1 at significant personal risk when she could have just run for safer quarters?

This is not to say she had to do this to prove her friendship but that she did it because she is Eli's friend.

You know, this is the first time *someone* has even come close to saying something Chloe does for Eli. To be honest, I had this in mind for a long time, and was waiting for when someone would bring it up, because it's really the closest thing you'll ever get. She was already in the room when the LA showed up, so the argument could be made that she didn't want to look shallow by just up and leaving Eli. Now, if the LA had showed up and she deliberately headed to the room to get him, that would be a stronger point.


Except what you've described here isn't a friendship in the first place. If you're doing things for someone else in order to get them to return the favour then that's not a friendship, there shouldn't be any expectation of needing to do things for each other.

You're right, but that's the natural result of friendship: people do things for each other. That's the real proof, and as long as it's absent, there is a strong case that two people aren't friends. Using your logic, Young and Rush are friends. Varro is friends with TJ because they hang out.


And what has Eli really done for Chloe in the normal day to day circumstances of living on the Destiny?

You're seriously asking this? The showers in Darkness for one, showing her where they were and then keeping an eye out for her. Giving her his blackberry or whatever it was for light. Waiting for her and making sure she wasn't alone. Taking her to see the gas giant they were about to slingshot around. Taking care of her when she got drunk. Covering for her and getting her onto the mission in "Human." Quickly forgiving her when she was worried he wasn't a friend to her anymore. Acceding to her wishes to leave the tic in and talk to her dad and keeping watch over her. Carrying her half-way through the ship when she was shot.

And those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I could probably find more by actually going through the episodes again. Yes, Eli is a GREAT friend to Chloe; the question is whether it is returned. There is an old proverb: "No greater love hath a man than this; that he lay down his life for his friend." I think we all know Eli would, but the evidence is sketchy at best, as to whether Chloe would or not.


I can't tell if you're being serious and really believe that being friends requires people to do things for each other on a quid pro quo basis. I really hope you're not because if you do then that's a very depressing outlook on life.

And I can turn that around and say you're naive, and I'm realistic. It's a pointless game to play. My point still stands: If you do a lot for me, and I do nothing for you, are we still friends? Yes, there is no expectation of repayment because it goes without saying. It's psychological problematic to continue doing something for someone without getting much in return; it's a drain on a person, and unhealthy. Resentment will grow, because you can only give so much without getting your own tank refilled in return.

So, I guess you don't want to be my friend, eh?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 23rd, 2010, 01:46 PM
Kai,


She was already in the room when the LA showed up, so the argument could be made that she didn't want to look shallow by just up and leaving Eli. Now, if the LA had showed up and she deliberately headed to the room to get him, that would be a stronger point.

My thought is that when the are bullets wizzing around "look[ing] shallow" is probably the least of her concerns. I think this epsiode shows her genuine philial love for Eli. She could have run and left him. She got him out of there when he didn't want to leave.

Starbux
June 23rd, 2010, 03:35 PM
OK, lurker comes out of closet to add 2 bits to this line of thinking because I'm feeling inspired to speak up here.

eh, hem...here goes. It might be historically cliche to say you have to "be a friend to have one" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but I do think that there is substantial weight in them. These words are not empty vessels. They carry power, truth, and substance. The question that seems to be coming up is, if someone does not reciprocate your belief system, then, how can you possibly call them a friend? Well, I think we have different levels of friendship. I think these quotes are the initial step in creating any meaningful friendship with "meaningful" being the operative word. I think that these will be foundational to any long term committed relationship. If you want friendship, be a friend. If you want companionship, be a companion. If you want to be supported, then be supportive. If you want love, give love. I also believe, that when you meet someone who shares that same belief system, you have the potential to develop your strongest and most fulfilling relationships. There has to be balance and boundaries for any healthy relationship, otherwise you might as well call it, like someone mentioned, one sided, or essentially, exploitation. That being said, not everybody does share that belief system, therefore, I would not expect to have a deep personal relationship with that type of person. I wouldn't necessarily "excommunicate" someone like that from my life, but I would certainly "proceed with caution" which is not the basis for that deep meaningful relationship and is supported by the quotes that I have already mentioned.

As far as Eli and Chloe, I think that they are forming the groundwork for a committed long lasting friendship that may lead to who knows where (I'm a romantic, but realistic, and this is a made up T.V. show for God's sake). It doesn't seem that Chloe has ever experienced a true friend. She was surrounded by superficial and self-serving imposters who claimed to be "friends". I think Eli's motivation is definitely affection for her, but I also think that he is the real deal, a genuinely decent guy, and he's displaying some rock solid and genuinely good qualities on a level that she's not ever experienced. Over time, if nothing else, Eli will gain her respect and a certain level of intimacy. Realistically, it may not be the "love connection" that he had hoped, but that is life, isn't it? He has nothing to be ashamed of and has been truthful, in his own way. She may not be physically attracted to Eli, at this point (I think he's adorable, actually), but there is so much more to a committed relationship than the packaging and this is what she's learning now...Chloe's relationship with Scott is lust based and that type of relationship does not have the foundation or stamina necessary for a committed long term relationship, it's just falls in line with how she operated back on earth...I have hope, she's not officially dead yet and wisdom comes with failure :)

OK, getting back in my closet now....

Krazeh
June 23rd, 2010, 05:29 PM
You're seriously asking this? The showers in Darkness for one, showing her where they were and then keeping an eye out for her. Giving her his blackberry or whatever it was for light. Waiting for her and making sure she wasn't alone.

Yeah, i'm sure Eli had no ulterior motives in doing any of that. I mean having pretty recently met this girl he likes and wants to get to know better he would never actually choose to do things like this just to get the chance to be around her to, ya know, get a chance to get to know her. These things weren't done for Chloe, they were done for Eli's benefit.


Taking her to see the gas giant they were about to slingshot around.

If I recall that scene correctly Eli seems to be pretty much forcing her to go along. I'm not sure how that was done anymore for his benefit as for his, he wanted someone there to experience the event with and she was the person he felt the closest bond to.


Taking care of her when she got drunk.

Ok, we have one possible contender for Eli do something for Chloe.


Covering for her and getting her onto the mission in "Human."

That'd be the mission where instead of letting Young give an answer after they both asked to go along he jumped in with a claim that Chloe had been reading up on Dr Jackson's notes? A claim that Chloe looked utterly bewildered by and hadn't been expecting Eli to make? A claim that was also shown to be utterly unnecessary by Young's statement that he never had any problem with having either of them go along?

So how exactly did he a) cover for her and b) get her onto the mission? Again Eli took an action which benefited him, i.e. he wanted Chloe to come along and thought it'd need a convincing story to get Young to allow that so he just went ahead and made one up.


Quickly forgiving her when she was worried he wasn't a friend to her anymore.

Again something done just as much for his benefit as Chloe's. He wants her friendship and so chose to forgive her quickly. It wasn't done solely to make her feel better, it was about what he wanted just as much as anything else.


Acceding to her wishes to leave the tic in and talk to her dad and keeping watch over her.

Risking her life so he doesn't end up looking like the bad guy who forced her to say goodbye to her dad again? What a selfless act that was. What he should have done, as a friend, was drag her to the infirmary to get the dangerous extra-terrestial tick removed and accepted the consquences of those actions.


Carrying her half-way through the ship when she was shot.

So we're upto two contenders for Eli having done something for Chloe.

Right so out of all the things you've claimed Eli has done for Chloe most of them can easily be seen to have been done just as much for Eli's benefit as hers. Hardly a relationship where all he does is give and all she does is take.


And I can turn that around and say you're naive, and I'm realistic. It's a pointless game to play. My point still stands: If you do a lot for me, and I do nothing for you, are we still friends? Yes, there is no expectation of repayment because it goes without saying. It's psychological problematic to continue doing something for someone without getting much in return; it's a drain on a person, and unhealthy. Resentment will grow, because you can only give so much without getting your own tank refilled in return.

So, I guess you don't want to be my friend, eh?

If in this fictional friendship I chose to keep doing things for you and then became resentful for you not doing anything in return that would firstly imply that there was an expectation of repayment and secondly it would not be your fault that I grew resentful because I had chosen to go ahead and do things for you when you didn't do the same in return.

In simple terms what each member of a friendship chooses to do for the other is down to them and them alone, it shouldn't be a condition of friendship nor should it be expected to be returned. Getting worked up because you bend over backwards for people while they don't do the same is to be honest a reflection on you more than anything else and I think anyone like that should take a step back and ask themselves why it really is that they are so eager to do things for others when it's not something they're routinely recieving back.

Kaiphantom
June 23rd, 2010, 07:27 PM
Interesting, Krazeh. You seem to be arguing that there is a genuine relationship there, and yet you're trying desperately to downplay things Eli has done for her? So which is it with you? Are they friends, or is Eli only doing all this just for himself?

I commend you on trying to change the subject, though. I know most people do that, when they realize their main point is looking pretty weak.

But I'll answer the question for you: Everyone is selfish on some level. We hang out with people because we like it. In the back of our minds, we know we do things for people because we're "paying in" so to speak, and want the same in return. So your arguments about Eli don't hold up to me, because I can freely admit that there is some selfish desire there.

My whole point is that Chloe isn't doing anything for him in return; quid pro quo, as you may like to call it. Whether you want to deny human nature or not, the truth is that everyone does something for their own benefit. No matter what example you can pull up, I can show that it has a selfish benefit; and you proved me right by contesting Eli's actions. Thank you very much for that. =)

Puddle-Jumper
June 23rd, 2010, 08:03 PM
Basically I think Chloe was just trying to say to Eli that she goes by the motto of 'Bro's b4 Hoe's' so to speak

Let me elaborate, essentially she was saying to Eli that while she would never have a sexual relationship with him cos well, she loves a guy with ab's and an ass that won't quit, that Eli is still her best friend and infact he's really closer to her then Scott is, that they'll always be friends, and that no matter how much she loves scott, she loves Eli more, her love for him being a platonic one.

And on a squeesy cheesy note, a close friendship is never a runner up prize. :)

Replicator Todd
June 23rd, 2010, 08:31 PM
Basically I think Chloe was just trying to say to Eli that she goes by the motto of 'Bro's b4 Hoe's' so to speak

Let me elaborate, essentially she was saying to Eli that while she would never have a sexual relationship with him cos well, she loves a guy with ab's and an ass that won't quit, that Eli is still her best friend and infact he's really closer to her then Scott is, that they'll always be friends, and that no matter how much she loves scott, she loves Eli more, her love for him being a platonic one.

And on a squeesy cheesy note, a close friendship is never a runner up prize. :)

You explained it far better than I could. *high fives* I agree that Chloe loves Eli more than Scott.

Blackhole
June 23rd, 2010, 08:54 PM
Interesting, Krazeh. You seem to be arguing that there is a genuine relationship there, and yet you're trying desperately to downplay things Eli has done for her? So which is it with you? Are they friends, or is Eli only doing all this just for himself?

I commend you on trying to change the subject, though. I know most people do that, when they realize their main point is looking pretty weak.

But I'll answer the question for you: Everyone is selfish on some level. We hang out with people because we like it. In the back of our minds, we know we do things for people because we're "paying in" so to speak, and want the same in return. So your arguments about Eli don't hold up to me, because I can freely admit that there is some selfish desire there.

My whole point is that Chloe isn't doing anything for him in return; quid pro quo, as you may like to call it. Whether you want to deny human nature or not, the truth is that everyone does something for their own benefit. No matter what example you can pull up, I can show that it has a selfish benefit; and you proved me right by contesting Eli's actions. Thank you very much for that. =)

I agree with your analysis that it seems to me that the time Eli and Chloe have spent together Eli has done more for Chloe than she has for him. I ask you; has Chloe done much for anybody else? The only things that comes to mind is when she volunteered her body for the doctor exchange when Rush needed the alien implant removed and defended Young in his mock trial. I think part of Chloe's character is that she is the damsel in distress. She is very pretty and has high social standing but from a utilitarian point of view doesn't offer much to Destiny. She is not a scientist and doesn’t have very many useful skills to contribute. As true as this fact may be it is also true that this isn't her fault. Along with everyone else she didn’t ask to be there. Eli is genius and as such is of immense value to Destiny.

Is Eli and Chloe's relationship seemly more one sided? Imo, probably yes. Is it bad thing for Eli? Well, I guess that is up to him. Chloe has been up front about how she feels and hasn't led him along at all. No one is forcing Eli to spend time with her and if she is being Chloe and is "using" him a little then that is up to Eli to decide if it is worth it or not. I think Eli's infatuation with her sets him up for a lot of frustration; but Eli is a big boy and if he wants to engage in relationship with someone who isn't likely to return his romantic feelings then it is his choice to do so. Hopefully, they will both grow from their time together. Eli needs to develop more self-confidence with women and Chloe needs to learn to be less self-centered and more giving. She probably always has relied on her looks to get her what she wanted. It is encouraging that she seems to have learned that the core group of "friends" she has had in her life have been very shallow and by association so has she. Eli and Chloe are coming from opposite ends of the social/status spectrum. Maybe moving away from the ends towards the middle will be what they both need to grow and become better people?

coldpower27
June 24th, 2010, 08:39 PM
Was reading through these posts and it seems the subject of Chloe's manipulative nature is a hot topic of discussion, I have encountered women like that in my life, best advice cease contact and stop doing free stuff for them if they aren't giving you what you need.


Altruism means "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others." But helping other people makes us feel good about ourselves so really, even if its on a subconscious level, altruistic behaviour is self serving.

Agreed, no such thing as "true" unselfishness.

coldpower27
June 24th, 2010, 08:53 PM
What? No, of course not.

All feeeeeemales are manipulative witches who only want to cook me some dinner wrap men around their fingers and kick us in our emotional, psychological, and physical crotches with their feminine wiles. I also think that, after they have us, they will eat us to provide for our young. I'm pretty sure that's what happens.

At least, that's what I think happens now that I have projected onto Chloe all my feelings of rejection by women who are kinda like Chloe and whom also treat me like I'm Eli, because women are all the same.

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

jelgate
June 24th, 2010, 08:58 PM
I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

I can't believe you just said that. People are diverse regardless of the gender. Some women are mantipulative. Their is no denying that. But I refuse to believe that all do things for others to further their agenda. Its never all or none when you talk are people. Their is more of a mixture between the kind and mantipulative.

And he was sarcastic

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 25th, 2010, 04:00 AM
coldpower,


I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

There's an incredibly significant amount of bitterness dripping off of your post.

Kaiphantom
June 25th, 2010, 07:27 AM
What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality.

xxxevilgrinxxx
June 25th, 2010, 07:46 AM
I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

that is sad on so many levels
sad that you think that way about women, but also sad in that, because you hold this attitude, I wonder if you would ever be able to enjoy a simple thing like the joy of a meal cooked for you without wondering what the catch was.

This woman cooks dinner for a man because she likes to. No agenda.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 25th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Kai,


What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality

Saying:


Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way

is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

Starbux
June 25th, 2010, 09:29 AM
[QUOTE. Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".[/QUOTE]

What if the agenda was to make her man happy, would that be a bad thing?

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 25th, 2010, 09:32 AM
Starbux,

What if their "agenda" is to end the feeling of hunger they are experincing. The height of manipulation there.

Starbux
June 25th, 2010, 09:46 AM
I don't understand how fulfilling a need is manipulation and chances are, I would be wanting some dinner myself. Now, there may benefits that occur from the act of cooking, depending on your abiliity to cook, that is, but that doesn't mean it's the primary motivation. I don't bake a chicken to get a leaky pipe fixed...I just don't work that way, I guess. Are we saying the same thing? The agenda for cooking is eating, right? It's the manipulation part that I'm confused about and the generalization that every woman, everywhere, works the same way.

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 10:11 AM
What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality.

But your blanket generalization that “everyone is selfish and wants things is the first step toward reality” is clearly not true. I don’t know if you are serious in your view or are making an extreme generalization just to stir up a debate? If you are arguing because every action everyone does benefits the person doing it in some fashion either directly or to fulfill some psychological need does not understand the meaning of the word selfish. The logic of the statement may technically be accurate but can’t be given as evidence of selfishness.

Selfish means:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

There has to be a norm beyond which is considered selfish. The term by definition is reflective of an “excessive or exclusive” focus with oneself and “without regard for others”. The meaning of the word has to be viewed with an understanding of the intent behind the person performing the action and in context of whether any reciprocity is sought for or expected from the action and is a matter of degree.

An example would be someone who gives a homeless person money when nobody is looking vs. someone who does it only when with someone because they want to appear magnanimous and would never do so if alone. The former would be an altruistic or unselfish act the later would not. Both acts involve the giving of money but the intent behind them is completely different.

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Kai,

Saying:

is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

I agree.

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 10:26 AM
that is sad on so many levels
sad that you think that way about women, but also sad in that, because you hold this attitude, I wonder if you would ever be able to enjoy a simple thing like the joy of a meal cooked for you without wondering what the catch was.

This woman cooks dinner for a man because she likes to. No agenda.


Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.

Starbux
June 25th, 2010, 11:47 AM
Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.

Yeah, what about if a man cooks for a woman or takes her out? Does that automatically imply there is "re-payment" due? Am I that naive or should I be saying, I'll bring my own dinner, thank you very much?

FallenAngelII
June 25th, 2010, 11:54 AM
Basically I think Chloe was just trying to say to Eli that she goes by the motto of 'Bro's b4 Hoe's' so to speak

Let me elaborate, essentially she was saying to Eli that while she would never have a sexual relationship with him cos well, she loves a guy with ab's and an ass that won't quit, that Eli is still her best friend and infact he's really closer to her then Scott is, that they'll always be friends, and that no matter how much she loves scott, she loves Eli more, her love for him being a platonic one.

And on a squeesy cheesy note, a close friendship is never a runner up prize. :)
I was gonna add this to the thread, but you beat me to it. Curse you!


I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".
Do you believe this because you've only ever dated crazy people or because you've never actually dated someone/dated someone who wanted to cook for you? Or maybe you're just 15.

What is this, I don't even... some people want their significant other to be happy because they're not selfish pricks who only care about themselves.

Others, like me, like cooking, especially for more than one. If I cook, I get to decide what gets made and how it's made. I'm also a reasonably good cook, if I say so myself. Furthermore, cooking for more than one allows you to cook "bigger" courses because it takes just way too much effort to cook a 4-course meal for just one person. If you cook for two or more, it won't feel like such a waste. Furthermore, most people enjoy dining with company as opposed to dining alone.

So I guess my horribly selfish agenda would be... I enjoy cooking and eating with company, especially larger meals as opposed to 15 minute meals like spaghetti and meatballs and such every single day? Wow, how horrible of me.

And if you're gonna argue that it doesn't matter because I'm a man (which would make your argument even more ridiculous and misogynistic), I'm gay, so when I cook for my partner, it's a man. And gay men are just effeminate little women-wannabes, right?


Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.
He specifically said that [women only cook for their men to further their own agendas in some way] (not verbatim). He singled out women. In my opinion, that indicates misogyny, even if it might be subconscious such.

Kaiphantom
June 25th, 2010, 03:01 PM
is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

Not opinion at all. Every action you do, is because it benefits you somehow. Even the hypothetical "I give $100 to a homeless person with no one watching" gives you an endorphine boost; you did it because it made you feel better. I fail to see what's wrong about this, which I think is the biggest fear here. No one wants to think that they are selfish, because they associate it with a negative.

Stop for a moment, and separate the word "selfish" from the word "negative." A hammer isn't a good or bad thing; it's just a tool. How it is used determines whether it is good or bad. Same thing with "selfish." By changing parameters and the environment, you can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons. This is generally how the free market is supposed to work (it has problems, but that's because it isn't regulated well-enough).

jmoz
June 25th, 2010, 03:05 PM
Friendship is a two way street, not one way.

FallenAngelII
June 25th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Stop for a moment, and separate the word "selfish" from the word "negative." A hammer isn't a good or bad thing; it's just a tool. How it is used determines whether it is good or bad. Same thing with "selfish." By changing parameters and the environment, you can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons. This is generally how the free market is supposed to work (it has problems, but that's because it isn't regulated well-enough).
You see kids, sometimes when a man and a woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman love each other, they want their significant other to be happy. They will selflessly seek out to make them happy or at least keep them from being unhappy, possibly to the point of "taking a bullet", so to say, for them (sacrifice themselves in some way to save their loved one).

Of course, this is all because of a selfish desire to experience an endorphin kick... or something.

jmoz
June 25th, 2010, 03:27 PM
mmmm, endorphins

Kaiphantom
June 25th, 2010, 03:30 PM
You see kids, sometimes when a man and a woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman love each other, they want their significant other to be happy. They will selflessly seek out to make them happy or at least keep them from being unhappy, possibly to the point of "taking a bullet", so to say, for them (sacrifice themselves in some way to save their loved one).

Of course, this is all because of a selfish desire to experience an endorphin kick... or something.

Yep. A man and a woman fall in love with each other because of how it makes them feel. And they try to keep doing things that make themselves feel good. They do this by doing things for their partner so their partner stays around so they can keep feeling good. What happens when one "falls out of love"? They hightail it. They don't stick around, because they are no longer getting good feelings. Hell, if they were truly selfless, they stick around with someone they didn't love, just because the other person still loved them. There's a fairly good reason psychologists say this is a bad idea... I'll let ya figure it out. =)

Yes, completely unromantic to look at this way, but hey, that's reality for ya. I understand most people would rather ignore the truth about reality and believe in something else, but to each their own, ya?

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Not opinion at all. Every action you do, is because it benefits you somehow. Even the hypothetical "I give $100 to a homeless person with no one watching" gives you an endorphine boost; you did it because it made you feel better. I fail to see what's wrong about this, which I think is the biggest fear here. No one wants to think that they are selfish, because they associate it with a negative.

Stop for a moment, and separate the word "selfish" from the word "negative." A hammer isn't a good or bad thing; it's just a tool. How it is used determines whether it is good or bad. Same thing with "selfish." By changing parameters and the environment, you can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons. This is generally how the free market is supposed to work (it has problems, but that's because it isn't regulated well-enough).

I am sorry but you logic is flawed. Not “every action you do, is because it benefits you somehow”. Selfless actions are by definition without benefit to the person doing them. How does giving away a $100 to help a stranger benefit the giver? They are a $100 poorer. I have had endorphin rushes and being a $100 poorer wouldn’t give me one. In the case of giving money away to a homeless person, it has no benefit to the person giving it. They are giving away their resources out of compassion. And selfishness is a negative trait. And comparing selfishness to a hammer doesn't hold. It is apples and oranges. A hammer is a tool and selfishness is a description of behavior that takes someone’s intent into consideration. Your statement "No one wants to think that they are selfish, because they associate it with a negative" is silly. Selfishness is a negative trait and not everyone is selfish. You need to review the definition of selfish, I will post it again.

Selfish means:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

There has to be a norm beyond which is considered selfish. The term by definition is reflective of an “excessive or exclusive” focus with oneself and “without regard for others”. The meaning of the word has to be viewed with an understanding of the intent behind the person performing the action and in context of whether any reciprocity is sought for or expected from the action and is a matter of degree.

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 07:42 PM
Yep. A man and a woman fall in love with each other because of how it makes them feel. And they try to keep doing things that make themselves feel good. They do this by doing things for their partner so their partner stays around so they can keep feeling good. What happens when one "falls out of love"? They hightail it. They don't stick around, because they are no longer getting good feelings. Hell, if they were truly selfless, they stick around with someone they didn't love, just because the other person still loved them. There's a fairly good reason psychologists say this is a bad idea... I'll let ya figure it out. =)

Yes, completely unromantic to look at this way, but hey, that's reality for ya. I understand most people would rather ignore the truth about reality and believe in something else, but to each their own, ya?

What does any of this have to do with the ultimate selfless act FallenAngelII was describing when a parent sacrifices themselves to protect a child?

Kaiphantom
June 25th, 2010, 08:31 PM
I am sorry but you logic is flawed. Not “every action you do, is because it benefits you somehow”. Selfless actions are by definition without benefit to the person doing them. How does giving away a $100 to help a stranger benefit the giver? They are a $100 poorer.

Because they feel better by doing it. Thus, they got something out of it.


What does any of this have to do with the ultimate selfless act FallenAngelII was describing when a parent sacrifices themselves to protect a child?

Interesting point. Why does a parent sacrifice for their child? You'd have to turn to evolutionary biology, but before we head there, let me head into a different area first. In the movie Star Trek 11, Kirk says he didn't believe in the "no-win" scenario. He's told that his father didn't believe in it, either, and yet he died. What was the response to Kirk? "Perhaps his definition of winning changed."

When you really explore the fascinating world of evolutionary biology, you see that our very existence is built upon passing our genes on. It's how we obtain our immortality, by ensuring our genes pass on. For males, this developed them to mate often with as many women as possible. For women, this drove them to find a single strong male for a protector. You can see these attitudes generally represented still in humanity today; girls go for the "bad boy" because they attracted to confidence and strength. Men are still driven to seek out multiple females.

So a parent sacrificing themselves for a child, is merely fulfilling the selfish desire to see their genes survive to the next generation.

Again, selfishness is neither bad nor good. Yes, it does seem to devalue the worth of an act, but that is just how you were trained to view such a thing. A large part of why humanity developed into a social group, is because we discovered there is strength in numbers. We trained ourselves, and our descendants, to view the group's success as our own. When the group succeeds, we do. That's why we generally seem to look down upon "selfishness" because we see it as detrimental to the group; someone doing something for themselves, instead of for the group.

Blackhole
June 25th, 2010, 10:42 PM
Because they feel better by doing it. Thus, they got something out of it.

Interesting point. Why does a parent sacrifice for their child? You'd have to turn to evolutionary biology, but before we head there, let me head into a different area first. In the movie Star Trek 11, Kirk says he didn't believe in the "no-win" scenario. He's told that his father didn't believe in it, either, and yet he died. What was the response to Kirk? "Perhaps his definition of winning changed."

When you really explore the fascinating world of evolutionary biology, you see that our very existence is built upon passing our genes on. It's how we obtain our immortality, by ensuring our genes pass on. For males, this developed them to mate often with as many women as possible. For women, this drove them to find a single strong male for a protector. You can see these attitudes generally represented still in humanity today; girls go for the "bad boy" because they attracted to confidence and strength. Men are still driven to seek out multiple females.

So a parent sacrificing themselves for a child, is merely fulfilling the selfish desire to see their genes survive to the next generation.

Again, selfishness is neither bad nor good. Yes, it does seem to devalue the worth of an act, but that is just how you were trained to view such a thing. A large part of why humanity developed into a social group, is because we discovered there is strength in numbers. We trained ourselves, and our descendants, to view the group's success as our own. When the group succeeds, we do. That's why we generally seem to look down upon "selfishness" because we see it as detrimental to the group; someone doing something for themselves, instead of for the group.

You still haven’t looked at the definition of the word selfish. You are ignoring the relativistic meaning of the word. There has to be a norm beyond which the behavior is considered selfish. You have put together this convoluted reasoning that because (in your mind) every act by every person always benefits themselves in some capacity somehow; therefore we all must be selfish because every act is always self-serving. Even if your statement is true the degree of self-servingness we all exhibit is going to vary tremendously. On one end of the spectrum some are only going to be a little self-serving (selfless) and on the other end some are going to be very self-serving (selfish) with most in the middle exhibiting moderate amounts. The relativistic definition of the word precludes it application to everyone. The behavior or quality you are trying to describe is not “selfishness”. Suggesting a parent that sacrifices themselves to save their child is only selfishly trying to pass on their genes isn’t valid. The motivations underlying human behavior are far too complex to be able to pigeon hole everyone as selfish. It is illogical and far too simplistic.

I can understand the appeal of trying to win a debate like we are having but I really think you believe what you are saying. I feel for you if this is how you think we all are. Many people tend to see the world as an extension of how they see themselves. In your case I hope this isn’t true.

Starbux
June 26th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Wish I could green 'ya Blackhole...

"When you really explore the fascinating world of evolutionary biology...." The problem with that kind of thinking, besides sounding like we're robots with hormones, is that it does not take into account the "human factor" and the very basic, innate need for community and the desire to love and be loved. Humans are social creatures by nature.

"So a parent sacrificing themselves for a child, is merely fulfilling the selfish desire to see their genes survive to the next generation" Does this mean that I don't let my kids play on the freeway because I'm afraid my gene pool will be lost forever?....There's more to it than that, Kai.

FallenAngelII
June 26th, 2010, 03:23 AM
Yes, completely unromantic to look at this way, but hey, that's reality for ya. I understand most people would rather ignore the truth about reality and believe in something else, but to each their own, ya?
You completely ignored the crux of my argument:
Sometimes people selflessly sacrifice themselves for a loved one.

Since you've already failed at attempting to refute a "Parent for a Child" argument, try your hand at the "Lover for a Lover" argument since your "Evolution" argument doesn't fly there. Why would someone sacrifice themselves to save a friend or a lover?