V_for_Verbose
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 13, 2013
Posts: 48
|
 Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 2:58 pm?? ?Post subject: My personal thoughts on romantic love and autism |
 |
|
| I would first like to make a little disclaimer: What I’m about to say in this post in just my personal opinion, and is not in any way designed to target, belittle, upset, hurt, or harm anyone who reads this. These are just my opinions, and while they are controversial, I just want everyone who reads this to understand that I’m not criticizing or mocking anyone, or condemning those with autism. After all, I am one of you as well. I will also be making my opinion from the traditional, heterosexual viewpoint
My thoughts on Romantic Love:
I define romantic love as the bonding of two individual of the opposite sex into an emotional, social, and potential sexual commitment to each other for an unspecified amount of time, depending on the success of the relationship.
I think the whole purpose of romantic love, in the end, is copulation, and to bring offspring into the world to prolong the human species (producing children also has the added benefit of teaching and watching your children grow, and as you grow older, more often than not, they will help financially support you). While this is not always favored by some couples, who may not want kids, I believe that more often than not, a serious romantic relationship or a marriage will usually yield children (although, and unfortunate as it is, some new couples, who aren’t really in love, have kids WAY before they are mentally and financially able to support them).
Romantic love is the conduit which leads to copulation, and eventually kids. It also solidifies a prolonged emotional commitment between two individuals for a long period of time, as long as things go well.
If a couple does not wish to produce children, romantic love is the means to solidify emotional and social stability between two individuals for a long period of time, and gives those two individuals comfort and support with each other.
Romantic love is also a prime example of Social Darwinism. Those who are naturally genetically “fit” are able to engage members of the opposite sex in emotional, and potentially, romantic relationships. The reason for their “fitness” is to eventually produce offspring, if they desire to do so.
My thoughts on High Functioning Autism and Romantic Love:
This is where my opinion will get offensive to some, and I apologize if I offend. Just as there are those who are “fit” for romantic relationships, there are those who are genetically “unift” for romantic relationships.
Examples of these: People with severe Down’s Syndrome, moderate to severe mental retardation, severe to moderate Autism
If left to nature, without any outside influence or help, these individuals would not be able to engage in successful romantic relationship, and produce offspring.
In honesty, I even think high functioning autism makes one “genetically unfit” for romantic love, because of the immense difficulties we have in understanding our neurotypical peers, and engaging in romantic relationships. If left strictly to nature, without outside influence or knowledge, I do not see the highly functioning autistic individual as being able to be involved in successful romantic relationships. The only contradiction to this would be if the autistic individual didn’t know they were high functioning autistic, or if they learned social skills early on and learned adaptation strategies.
However, I would make the argument that SOMEHOW, beyond my comprehension, high functioning autistics are able to engage in romantic relationships. A lot of them struggle and are not in relationships, but somehow, a minority is successful in this area. There are three reasons for this, in my opinion:
1. Cultural Folkways concerning dating
In most industrialized, developed nations, like the countries in Europe, the United States, England, etc, there are cultural folkways that are followed consistently. One is that men are expected to approach women they are attracted to, and ask them out on a date. It is culturally unusual and unheard of for a woman to ask out a man on a date.
This little factoid explains, in my opinion, why autistic women are more likely to be in a relationship than an autistic male would be. Because of cultural expectations and rules, that govern social interactions. Women wait for the approach, men make the approach.
2. Adaptation to social situations
While I consider high functioning autism a form of “genetic unfitness” for romantic relationship, I can’t deny that there are those rare individuals who have adapted to social circumstances, and have learned the necessary skills to be involved in romantic relationships, either through trial and error, or through using knowledge from the outside source.
3. Neurotypical sympathy/breaking cultural folkways
I primarily see this with autistic males. They have trouble conveying their romantic interest in a NT girl, and that NT girl is sympathetic towards him, and likes her, and she bridges the gap by making the first move in order to get the ball rolling in a potential friendship or romantic relationship. This is a clear violation of traditional folkways of NT people, the expectation is for men to make the first move, and for women to wait for that move.
In another example, a NT girl likes an autistic boy, and she doesn’t know how to tell him, so she does, and breaks traditional folkways set by society.
Conclusion
It is my belief that although high functioning autism is a form of genetic unfitness for romantic love and genuine human emotional connection, it is POSSIBLE for an autistic individual to establish a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex, GIVEN THE “RIGHT” circumstances, which as I stated were: cultural folkways concerning dating, adaptation, and neurotypical sympathy/breaking cultural folkways.
It is unfortunate that the autistic individual struggles so much in these areas (romantic love, relationships, etc), but while thing are bleak, they are not entirely impossible in the terms of probability of being in a potential romantic relationship.
These are my thoughts? Do you agree? Do you disagree? Did I make your head spin like a top and you’re trying to process all that information? I’d like to hear what you have to say. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
JanuaryMan
Aspierational
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
Age: 28
Posts: 2527
Location: Hants, UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 3:29 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
I’m afraid I can’t entirely agree with one of your opening statements for a number of reasons. First off, here is the statement:
| V_for_Verbose wrote: |
| I define romantic love as the bonding of two individual of the opposite sex into an emotional, social, and potential sexual commitment to each other for an unspecified amount of time, depending on the success of the relationship. |
Now my reasons why I disagree:
o I don’t believe romance is defined by commitment or sex. I think you’ll find it’s a relationship that’s normally defined by commitment or trust of some kind, and possibly but not necessarily sex.
o The other thing that struck me with what you said is the implication it’s primarily (possibly only) applicable to two individuals of the opposite sex based on our interpretation of gender classification. As I see romance as a specific display of affection and method of wooing a love/lust interest, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that only X or Y mind and body are the defining elements of Romance.
o I see Romance as an act exclusive of bonds, love, commitment, and relationships and it can serve to mould, enhance or be part of those separate things.
Thanks for reading.
(edited the message as some of the text was unclear).
_________________
“A man is but the product of his thoughts – what he thinks, he becomes.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Last edited by JanuaryMan on Thu May 16, 2013 6:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
krazykat
Snowy Owl
Joined: Mar 06, 2010
Posts: 140
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ferrus91
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Apr 26, 2013
Age: 25
Posts: 48
Location: Kent, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 23
Posts: 704
Location: Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
amapola
Hummingbird
Joined: Jan 01, 2013
Age: 19
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 5:43 pm?? ?Post subject: Re: My personal thoughts on romantic love and autism |
|
|
| V_for_Verbose wrote: |
| I would first like to make a little disclaimer: What I’m about to say in this post in just my personal opinion, and is not in any way designed to target, belittle, upset, hurt, or harm anyone who reads this. These are just my opinions, and while they are controversial, I just want everyone who reads this to understand that I’m not criticizing or mocking anyone, or condemning those with autism. After all, I am one of you as well. I will also be making my opinion from the traditional, heterosexual viewpoint
My thoughts on Romantic Love:
I define romantic love as the bonding of two individual of the opposite sex into an emotional, social, and potential sexual commitment to each other for an unspecified amount of time, depending on the success of the relationship.
I think the whole purpose of romantic love, in the end, is copulation, and to bring offspring into the world to prolong the human species (producing children also has the added benefit of teaching and watching your children grow, and as you grow older, more often than not, they will help financially support you). While this is not always favored by some couples, who may not want kids, I believe that more often than not, a serious romantic relationship or a marriage will usually yield children (although, and unfortunate as it is, some new couples, who aren’t really in love, have kids WAY before they are mentally and financially able to support them).
Romantic love is the conduit which leads to copulation, and eventually kids. It also solidifies a prolonged emotional commitment between two individuals for a long period of time, as long as things go well.
If a couple does not wish to produce children, romantic love is the means to solidify emotional and social stability between two individuals for a long period of time, and gives those two individuals comfort and support with each other.
Romantic love is also a prime example of Social Darwinism. Those who are naturally genetically “fit” are able to engage members of the opposite sex in emotional, and potentially, romantic relationships. The reason for their “fitness” is to eventually produce offspring, if they desire to do so.
My thoughts on High Functioning Autism and Romantic Love:
This is where my opinion will get offensive to some, and I apologize if I offend. Just as there are those who are “fit” for romantic relationships, there are those who are genetically “unift” for romantic relationships.
Examples of these: People with severe Down’s Syndrome, moderate to severe mental retardation, severe to moderate Autism
If left to nature, without any outside influence or help, these individuals would not be able to engage in successful romantic relationship, and produce offspring.
In honesty, I even think high functioning autism makes one “genetically unfit” for romantic love, because of the immense difficulties we have in understanding our neurotypical peers, and engaging in romantic relationships. If left strictly to nature, without outside influence or knowledge, I do not see the highly functioning autistic individual as being able to be involved in successful romantic relationships. The only contradiction to this would be if the autistic individual didn’t know they were high functioning autistic, or if they learned social skills early on and learned adaptation strategies.
However, I would make the argument that SOMEHOW, beyond my comprehension, high functioning autistics are able to engage in romantic relationships. A lot of them struggle and are not in relationships, but somehow, a minority is successful in this area. There are three reasons for this, in my opinion:
1. Cultural Folkways concerning dating
In most industrialized, developed nations, like the countries in Europe, the United States, England, etc, there are cultural folkways that are followed consistently. One is that men are expected to approach women they are attracted to, and ask them out on a date. It is culturally unusual and unheard of for a woman to ask out a man on a date.
This little factoid explains, in my opinion, why autistic women are more likely to be in a relationship than an autistic male would be. Because of cultural expectations and rules, that govern social interactions. Women wait for the approach, men make the approach.
2. Adaptation to social situations
While I consider high functioning autism a form of “genetic unfitness” for romantic relationship, I can’t deny that there are those rare individuals who have adapted to social circumstances, and have learned the necessary skills to be involved in romantic relationships, either through trial and error, or through using knowledge from the outside source.
3. Neurotypical sympathy/breaking cultural folkways
I primarily see this with autistic males. They have trouble conveying their romantic interest in a NT girl, and that NT girl is sympathetic towards him, and likes her, and she bridges the gap by making the first move in order to get the ball rolling in a potential friendship or romantic relationship. This is a clear violation of traditional folkways of NT people, the expectation is for men to make the first move, and for women to wait for that move.
In another example, a NT girl likes an autistic boy, and she doesn’t know how to tell him, so she does, and breaks traditional folkways set by society.
Conclusion
It is my belief that although high functioning autism is a form of genetic unfitness for romantic love and genuine human emotional connection, it is POSSIBLE for an autistic individual to establish a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex, GIVEN THE “RIGHT” circumstances, which as I stated were: cultural folkways concerning dating, adaptation, and neurotypical sympathy/breaking cultural folkways.
It is unfortunate that the autistic individual struggles so much in these areas (romantic love, relationships, etc), but while thing are bleak, they are not entirely impossible in the terms of probability of being in a potential romantic relationship.
These are my thoughts? Do you agree? Do you disagree? Did I make your head spin like a top and you’re trying to process all that information? I’d like to hear what you have to say.
|
But people are on higher evolutional level than animals.Disability doesn`t mean that someone should not have a relationship.We are civilized people ,and everyone has the right to realise what he/she wants in life.But your statements,are,unfortunately,true in most cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
V_for_Verbose
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 13, 2013
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:22 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
|
Let me first of all say congratulations on your AS/AS or AS/other disability relationship .
You are correct when you said I forgot about people like you. But the reason why I did that, krazykat, is because realistically, although there is a slight to moderate probability of an AS/AS or AS/OD relationship, I would make the argument that we, the autistic, are a minority among the majority, who are neurotypical.
And as such, the likelihood of finding another compatible AS or OD partner is slim in my estimation. I probably figure that you met your AS other half through alternative means then the stereotypical meet someone, ask them on a date, and start a relationship if all goes well.
I’m merely guessing, but you probably met her via an Autism support group, online via chatrooms, or specifically were look for someone with AS to date.
Remember, the autism rate now is either 1 in 66 children are born with autism, or 1 in 88 children are born with autism. We are still a minority when it comes to neurodiversity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
V_for_Verbose
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 13, 2013
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:42 pm?? ?Post subject: Re: My personal thoughts on romantic love and autism |
|
|
| amapola wrote: |
| But people are on higher evolutional level than animals.Disability doesn`t mean that someone should not have a relationship.We are civilized people ,and everyone has the right to realise what he/she wants in life.But your statements,are,unfortunately,true in most cases. |
I agree with you. My point, when discussing “fitness”, is explaining the ability of one to be social enough, and to have enough knowledge, to be able to engage the opposite sex in such a way that the probability of being in a relationship down the road is higher.
When I use the term “unfit” I am referencing that the individual isn’t naturally able to engage in the social dialouge, flirting, and other steps to engage the opposite sex in such a way that they can possibly be in a romantic relationship.
A good example of “unfitness” to “fitness” through the use of adaptation would be like this:
You have a kid in high school who is scrawny, nonathletic, and is picked on often by kids because he is weaker, and is interested in things they aren’t interested in. He gets beat up occasionally by bullies. One day, he gets tired of it, and decides “I’m going to be strong”. He starts lifting weights regularly, and takes a boxing class and learns everything about boxing.
A couple months down the road, he is stronger, and knows how to defend himself. Bullies try to pick on him, and he beats they up for a change. People don’t mess with him anymore.
He was “unfit”, and now he is “fit” through “adaptation” to increase his chances of survival.
But I agree with you in this sense- everyone who is capable of full cognition, and the ability to rationalize, should be able to be in a relationship. The only problems I see are with the severe to moderately mentally retarded, severe Down’s Syndrome, and severe to moderately autistic, because these individuals usually need the assistance of someone else, and can not function independently.
It would beg the question whether they would be competent enough to handle the ramifications of having children through copulation, if they were allowed that luxury. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
billiscool
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 1034
|
|
| Back to top |
|
V_for_Verbose
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 13, 2013
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 9:28 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
| billiscool wrote: |
| from V_for_verbose: ” It is culturally unusual and unheard of for a woman to ask out a man on a date”
——————————————————————————————————————
Ok, then how do you explain my ex girlfriend then, who asked me out? she did have autism, if that makes a difference or not.
|
I stand by what I said because I know it is true, and what I have read countless times in books on how to attract women, and what I’ve seen many times. In most developed industrialized nations, like the United States, Great Britain, Europe, and Australia, it is culturally expected for guys to make the first move.
For your circumstance, billiscool, tell me, did she ask you or before or after she learned you were autistic?
My analysis would be this- There are only a couple circumstances in which a girl will ask out a guy:
1.) If a girl really like a guy a lot, but doesn’t think he knows that she likes him, she might drop hints like: “It was nice talking with you,
maybe we should hang out sometime” or “hey, I’m free Monday and I’m going to hang out at the mall, would you like to come?” So
he’ll get the picture and accept or ask her out.
2.) If a guy really likes a girl, but is having trouble expressing his romantic interest in her, and if she picks up on it, she will probably
do one of two things- she will either be annoyed or irritated that he’s not making the move, and her attraction towards him will
drop like a brick off a skyscraper OR she’ll find it cute, and will try to make the first move to get the ball rolling towards an eventual
relationship.
3.) If a girl really likes a guy a lot, she will drop hints. If the guy doesn’t pick up on the hints, she might get a little frustrated. She might
even tell a close gal friend about it, and that gal friend may come to the guy and say “You know, Jessica really likes you a lot, I think
you two would be good together.” That’s happened to me before.
There may be more circumstances than this, but these are the ones I know about, and some I’ve experienced before.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
V_for_Verbose
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 13, 2013
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 9:43 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
| JanuaryMan wrote: |
| I don’t believe romance is defined by commitment or sex. I think you’ll find it’s a relationship that’s normally defined by commitment or trust of some kind, and possibly but not necessarily sex. |
That’s why I stated “potential sexual commitment”. Not all couples engage in sex when they start dating. Some abstain from it until marriage for moral or religious reasons, or because they want to make sure that the person they are with loves them for them until they potentially get married. But I agree with your notion of trust and commitment, which are necessary for a good, durable romantic relationship.
| JanuaryMan wrote: |
| The other thing that struck me with what you said is the implication it’s primarily (possibly only) applicable to two individuals of the opposite sex based on our interpretation of gender classification. As I see romance as a specific display of affection and method of wooing a love/lust interest, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that only X or Y mind and body are the defining elements of Romance. |
I stated I would base my opinions on love on the traditional heterosexual viewpoint. While I certainly do believe gay, lesbian, and bisexual people can fall in love with each other, and I have friends who are as such, the reason why I went with the heterosexual model of “romantic love” is because the real “purpose” of love and romance is two-fold- one is have a system of moral support and comfort for an unspecified period of time, which is dependent on the successful status of the relationship, and two- to copulate and pass your genes on to the next generation, which should support you in your old age.
Gay people can’t have children- they can adopt them, or have artificial insemination, or other options. The only combination that produces offspring is the heterosexual one, since our reproductive organs are designed to act in conjunction with the opposite sex to produce offspring. So in essence- romantic love can be experienced by all sexual orientations, however the heterosexual combination is the only one that produces offspring, which is the product of romantic love, when taking to the fullest level.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
JanuaryMan
Aspierational
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
Age: 28
Posts: 2527
Location: Hants, UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 9:51 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
| I can understand your viewpoints from a heterosexual standpoint but unfortunately I do not understand why you feel it’s necessary to limit yourself to that viewpoint alone. In the coming decades, centuries, should we not wipe ourselves out who can or can’t procreate will mean nothing outside of the fringe group of tribal extremists.
We can already clone, artificially inseminate, artificially create. Our evolution is getting to the point where it is no longer defined by our body development but our technology and science. It’s happening right now. Procreation will no longer determine a lot of things about relationships for heterosexuals let alone any other sexuality or genders.
Perhaps I’m thinking too far forward here, but I prefer not to limit my thinking to confined spaces. Heterosexual relationships for the time being might have the soul purpose of pro creation but I myself don’t care about passing on a torch or legacy and I feel many others are the same, gay and straight. Anyways, I digress….
——————————————
Romance – an act. Can be done in/out of but is not synonymous with love, passion, relationships.
Myself – 2013 
EDIT: I noticed I hadn’t touched on any of your thoughts about Autism. Expect that tomorrow! It’s like, 3AM! Cheerio.
_________________
“A man is but the product of his thoughts – what he thinks, he becomes.” – Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
billiscool
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 1034
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 10:36 pm?? ?Post subject: |
|
|
yes, she asked me out mr.v… she said to me at work ”hey, bill you want to hang out”
and that how it all start, we met at a park. a few days later, I was walking her home, and I ask if I could I kiss her and she said
yes, and I had my first kiss. We would mostly just go to parks and make out. this went on for a few months,
then one day we were just walking and she just said ”hey, bill, you want to have sex” and of course I said ”yes.”
and before she ask ”want to hang out” she came up to me first, she would always talk to me at work.
this went on for a couple month, before she just ask ”’want to hang out”.
but she never had sex before she met me, I was her first sex partners. In fact, she never really talk to anyone but me,
she had no friends, she had one boyfriend before, but they never did anything, and the guy was very disable.
around people, she was very quiet and very reserve. and she had alot of tall tales, she would talk about her adventure,
but most were most likely untrue. so that all I can say about her.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
May 17, 2013 ? The processes to allow people to self-manage their own illness are not being used appropriately by health professionals to the benefit of their patients, new research suggests.
Self-management support aims to increase the patient’s ability to take ownership over their condition and in some cases, to self-treat. It is widely seen as critical to ensure the sustainability of health services in terms of costs. Although potentially effective, patient based interventions can be limited as not all patients engage with them. However, embedding self-management support discussions and decisions into everyday clinical practices is thought to encourage patients to become more actively involved.
The study, led by Senior Research Fellow, Anne Kennedy at the University of Southampton, was carried out in the North West of England by the Universities of Southampton, Manchester, York and Keele and published in the BMJ. It assessed a whole system intervention, which attempted to implement self-management support, led by the health service, for patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or irritable bowel syndrome.
All staff, including clinical, management and administrative staff, at 44 practices were trained in a new self-management approach, designed by the universities involved, which helped them to put the patient at the centre of their care and use a range of self-management support resources.
More than 5,500 patients took part in the trial — one of the largest randomised controlled trials of self-management support in primary care ever completed. Practices were randomised to either receive the training intervention and deliver the new self-management approach or provide routine care (the control practices were trained after the trial was completed).
However feedback and assessments showed that while practices engaged with and enjoyed the training, they did not use the approach to improve shared decision-making with patients or encourage the take-up of self-management support. There was no difference in results for any patient outcomes or on service use between the group that had the self-management approach and the group which received usual care.
Southampton’s Dr Anne Kennedy comments: “We are disappointed by these results, as self-management support options do have the ability to help a lot of people, but the findings were very clear. There were a small number of patients who did benefit from the self-management process during the study but overall the feedback showed that the self-management model does not fit with the reality and demands of primary care practice and it is just paid lip service to. The active components required for effective self-management support need to be better understood, both within primary care and in patients’ everyday lives Furthermore a separate process evaluation will explore why practitioners were not able to implement the intervention.”
Co-author Professor Peter Bower, from the University of Manchester, says “[the study] used an intervention that could be delivered widely in routine primary care settings to maximise the applicability of the research.” He added that the results suggest that self-management support may require considerable additional incentives to encourage practices to more actively engage with a self-management agenda.
Dr Kennedy adds: “One possibility is that most forms of intervention, whether provider based or patient based, are outside patients’ workaday and social activities, so fail to embed themselves into their everyday lives. It may be that greater efforts to integrate support for self-management into patients’ personal social networks or by using means that are more pervasive in people’s lives, such as mobile technology, would prove a more effective approach to engaging patients with self-management.”
The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) Programme and The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre.
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/cqZxS3yjubY/130517085725.htm
texas rangers steve jobs meningitis bobby valentine bobby valentine miguel cabrera Karrueche Tran
By Randee Dawn, NBC News contributor
Casting any movie is tough, but try casting a “Star Trek” movie, knowing that the original television characters are already dearly beloved by millions of devoted fans. Few actors are as associated with their roles as William Shatner as Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Spock. Yet when Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto took over those roles in the 2009 film “Star Trek,” reviews were mostly quite positive. As Pine, Quinto and co-stars prepare to beam down to theaters once again in “Star Trek Into Darkness,” let’s take a look at how the new actors fill out their Starfleet uniforms.
James T. Kirk
Classic:? William Shatner
New: Chris Pine
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
Chris Pine plays Capt. Kirk in the new “Star Trek” movies, but he can’t beat the classic William Shatner.
The Shat has built a fine post-?Trek? career — once he accepted with good humor that he would never, ever be forgotten as Kirk. But that aside, Classic Kirk has to rule over New Kirk. Classic Kirk had a twinkle in his eye, was never afraid to bare a chest, and had a way with a universe?s worth of ladies. We haven?t seen that yet in New Kirk, who?s more of a tomcat than a ladies? man and far from an unquestioned leader. Plus, only Classic Kirk has proven he can create a bazooka out of a log, dirt and gemstones.
Advantage: Classic Kirk
?
Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy
Classic: DeForest Kelley
New: Karl Urban
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
Karl Urban and DeForest Kelley both have their good points as Bones, but the new guy, Urban, is a handsome bad boy.
Okay, so Classic Bones wasn?t afraid to smack a hoity-toity pregnant lady if he needed to do an examination. But something about his eternal grumpiness and pointed Spock-like eyebrows made Kelley’s version of the doctor a little hard to like. New Bones is good looking enough to give Kirk a run for his money (if you like ?em dark and mercurial), he rocks a beard and swigs from a flask when necessary. New Bones is a bad boy as well as a doc, and that is the wave of the future.
Advantage: New McCoy
?
Spock
Classic: Leonard Nimoy
New: Zachary Quinto
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bro
Bravo, Zachary Quinto! The actor has taken on Leonard Nimoy’s famed Spock and given him a modern update.
The old neck-pincher is one of the toughest decisions to make, particularly since Classic Spock (or rather, Spock Prime) makes an appearance in the rebooted series. The casting of Quinto as a youthful Nimoy is spot-on, unlike many of the other cast choices ? and the 2009 film even showed a pre-adolescent Spock on top of everything else. In a way, this is the best blended character with some of the series? most memorable personality quirks and special powers. How can we choose just one?
Advantage: Both Spocks
?
Montgomery ‘Scotty’ Scott
Classic: James Doohan
New: Simon Pegg
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
Simon Pegg isn’t quite as devoted to the Enterprise as the original Scotty, James Doohan — and that’s a good thing.
You know, Classic Scotty really, really loved the Enterprise. Possibly a bit too much. Sure, he was the engineer and knew all of the inner workings of the ship, but sometimes you had to wonder if it made him a little touched in the head, being stuck down in the boiler room all the time. (No wonder he could outdrink an alien.) No such issue with New Scotty, who is still getting to know the big old girl and may take a long time to find his love connection. And that?s good for tension and comedy.
Advantage: New Scotty
?
Hikaru Sulu
Classic: George Takei
New: John Cho
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
Which Sulu rules, John Cho or George Takei? It’s a tie!
In the 2009 film, Sulu got a few big moments ?- such as when he had to skydive from space and parachute onto a drilling platform, then fight off some Romulans. But the sword battle part of that scene was really an homage to one of Classic Sulu?s greatest scenes: When his inner swashbuckler comes to light and he runs around waving an epee. At the moment, there?s just not enough information on New Sulu to warrant leaving Classic Sulu behind, so we?d tend to lean toward Classic Sulu (oh, myyyy!) ? but let?s consider this the wild card in the bunch.
Advantage: Tie
?
Pavel Chekov
Classic: Walter Koenig
New: Anton Yelchin
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
New Chekov Anton Yelchin is a real Russian, unlike Walter Koenig from the classic series.
First off, if you?re gonna have a Russian on the Enterprise, hire a dang Russian. All due respect to Classic Chekov, but a Monkee look-alike from Chicago doesn?t hold much of a candle to New Chekov, whose portrayer hails from Leningrad and plays him as more delightfully impulsive than the originator. Plus, he was able to save Spock?s father thanks to some fantastical manipulation of the transporter. And he?s a navigator!
Advantage: New Chekov
?
Nyota Uhura
Classic: Nichelle Nichols
New: Zoe Saldana
Paramount via Getty / Warner Bros
Zoe Saldana’s Uhura serves mostly as eye candy, whereas Nichelle Nichols juggled many roles.
Here?s a surprise: A show that began in the 1960s is better at handling its one regular female crew member than one in the new millennium. New Uhura served largely as eye candy and as a sex object for New Kirk, even if she could kick more butt and talk dirty. Classic Uhura managed to juggle all of her subspace frequencies far better — and of course was the shared co-conspirator in one of TV?s first interracial kisses, when she and Classic Kirk locked lips.
Advantage: Classic Uhura
Final tallies: Four classics and five from the new bunch (though Spock and Sulu bridge both categories). Surprise! It turns out that the new franchise has managed to improve on the old — though we sense there will be some disagreement on this issue. Tell us who your favorite newcomer is in our poll.
Source: http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18254749-which-star-trek-crew-wins-out-tv-or-movie?lite
texas rangers steve jobs meningitis bobby valentine bobby valentine miguel cabrera Karrueche Tran
 One of the most interesting product demos on display at Google I/O this year was a virtual sky diving simulation build using eight separate computers running Chrome, along with a Kinect-like motion sensor made by ASUS called the Xtion Pro. The Maps Dive experiment was created by Portland-based independent digital agency Instrument.
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/dxxtKK3NFnA/
xi jinping matt bomer westminster kennel club dog show jeremy lin game winner chocolate covered strawberries shrimp scampi kate upton si cover
By Jennifer Kwan
VICTORIA, British Columbia (Reuters) – The incumbent Liberal Party won a handsome majority in the election in the Canadian Pacific province of British Columbia on Tuesday, news networks predicted, defying the pollsters who had expected voters to boot the party out of power.
The Liberals, in power for more than a decade, lost support after the introduction, and then cancellation, of an unpopular sales tax. But the party gained momentum late in an election campaign that focused on the economy, balanced budgets and controlled spending.
The majority government was predicted by networks Global News and CTV News.
Analysts characterized the victory as shocking and a miracle because the Liberals had trailed the left-leaning New Democrats by some 20 percentage points heading into the campaign.
Provisional returns at around 10 p.m. Pacific Time (1 a.m. EDT Wednesday) showed the Liberals had won, or were slightly ahead, in 50 of the 85 seats in the provincial legislature, while the NDP were heading for 33 seats. Forty-three seats are needed for a majority.
Premier Christy Clark was in a tight race with the NDP challenger for her seat and the winner had yet to be decided.
The Liberals held 45 seats in the previous legislature, the NDP had 36, and four were held by independents.
The key turning point in the campaign seemed to be Clark’s ability to play up fears that the New Democrats would be poor stewards of Canada’s fourth-largest provincial economy.
NDP leader Adrian Dix opposed both the proposed C$6 billion ($6 billion) Enbridge Inc Northern Gateway pipeline that would ship 525,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day from Alberta to the B.C. coast, and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP’s plan to more than double the size of its Trans Mountain pipeline carrying crude oil from Edmonton, Alberta, to the coast.
Dix had promised to revoke an agreement the Liberals had signed under which British Columbia would recognize whatever federal decision is taken after a federal environmental review of the Northern Gateway pipeline, due at the end of this year.
British Columbia, which includes large parts of the Canadian Rockies as well as the rugged and often undeveloped Pacific coast, prides itself on its environmental policies. Greenpeace was founded here in 1971.
Green Party candidate Andrew Weaver won the party’s first seat in a provincial legislature in Canada.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/liberals-stage-comeback-win-canadas-british-columbia-networks-052312346.html
bill cosby us open bill nye Hurricane Isaac 2012 Snooki Baby terrell owens terrell owens
| 
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small}
Public release date: 17-May-2013
Share ]
