I kind of like that the issue who was inappropriate was left unresolved. Wait, wait, hear me out! In the real world two people can recall the same events, both be telling the truth and still not agree on what happened. I admire that the writers went out of the way to say she's not lying. And to show a scenario where they are both flirting. Knowing Riker, he wouldn't force himself on anyone. But he also wouldn't resist as strongly as he portrayed if an attractive woman was flirting with him. In my head cannon, they were probably flitting with each other, they both knew it was wrong. So when the kiss happened they both stopped it. The guilt they felt colored both of thier memories. Each saw themselves as the victim.
That's why it's called "A Matter of perspective". It's said that if 100 people witness something, you will have at least 100 different stories and each will believe their story is the true one. That's why trials can be so messy. It's real life.
I suspect it's probable that the interaction between RIker and Manua was somewhere in between both versions. Riker probably wasn't anywhere near as forceful as Manua remembered and Manua anywhere near as forward as Riker remembered, but the different versions are a....matter of perspective, as the title suggests rather than deliberate deception. How we view ourselves is really important to how we perceive any interaction or event, so it's important to remember that the other person also has their own perspective and it's independent of our own. As Katrina pointed out, communicating our thoughts and feelings is vital in letting others see our side of things and understand our perspective. It's the only way really...short of being a Betazed I suppose.
I think part of the problem with the "rape," subplot is that what's depicted isn't entirely a matter of perspective. ie; Riker's view - its possible he saw himself as coming off more professional and distant than she saw it. He's a charming man and whilst I don't believe he would intentionally flirt with a married woman, his general demeanor is probably more flirtatious than he realises. Dr Apgar's view - this is relayed through a third-party, so the idea of Riker and Maneua kissing could simply be an exaggeration of Apgar seeing his wife and Riker looking like they were flirting. Him knocking Riker on his ass was quite obviously a lie concocted by a man with a bruised ego. Maneua's view - she straight-up claims that Riker's physically restrained her and tried to pull her dress off against her will. That ISN'T a matter of perspective. That either happened or it didn't. It would have made more sense to have her acting all shy and innocent, with Riker flirting like a horny schoolboy, perhaps standing too close and invading her personal space. That is the sort of thing that could come down to misinterpretation and perspective. But backing her into a corner and pulling her clothes off as she begs him to stop....no. You can't really leave that as "open to interpretation."
That is exactly what I hate about this episode, but much better phrased than I could have. The very idea that Riker would do something that vile, is simply absurd.
Yup - more often than most people realize (or want to acknowledge). It actually leaves me scratching my head as to why we still admit eyewitness testimony as evidence in court. If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow any eyewitness testimony that wasn't corroborated by hard evidence.
I think it is important to reflect on the difference between what people think and what they do. Even if Riker had wanted to come on to her, in his imagination he is free, but we know him as someone who does not act on impulses like that because he is a stronger character than this, as you said he likes consent in his personal interactions. The same for Manua: Maybe she felt threatened or maybe she wished for attention. Maybe she felt guilty about it or just in shock after the death of her husband? Troi's abilities may come in handy, but the impressions are just as misleading as every other sense. We feel within our thoughts just as much as we do within our actions and circumstances and sometimes we don't like the people we are inside and do better on the outside, immoral thoughts don't make immoral people.
The question of, did he lie or did she lie, may have no correct answer. The problem is wanting to believe that a witness's viewpoint is accurate (so they are either lying or telling the truth), when science and psychology tell us it has problems. I remember the first time I watched the Simons and Chabris selective attention test. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that things didn't happen the way described. Then I watched the video over from the beginning, and wondered how I missed something so obvious.
@@mmattson8947 Is that the basketball passing one? I got that right, and also saw what they mentioned at the end as well. I mean, it happened RIGHT where I was looking so I am not sure why someone wouldn't see it. Maybe some people use a different method for tracking things happening in the scene but it seemed like a pretty pointless test to me.
The way you ladies have been binging of the series, you have to have finished the season. Can't wait to see Kat's reaction to the rest, especially next week's episode, which I could have sworn came earlier then it does. BTW, a Happy Birthday to Brent Spiner today. He was great as Bob Wheeler on Night Court. Oh, yea, as well as that certain android he is on this show. ;-)
It's a great episode. It's hard to capture all perspectives thoroughly in less than 60 minutes. A major frustration for TV writers. They did a good job despite its incompleteness. 😊
The one thing we know about their culture is that they're fine with thinking the worst (guilty) about people without any proof. I don't want to chalk it up to a cross-cultural misunderstanding since Riker is trained for such things, but maybe he was doomed the second he stepped on the station because anything he did would be assumed, by both the wife and husband, to be inappropriate regardless of if it was or not. It sounds like an exhausting and crazy culture to constantly have to prove oneself to others, but maybe that's what they do all day. Maybe that group of 3 was a large group for them because they avoid each other as much as possible because they assume everyone is evil. A bunch of paranoids that would truly believe the worst would explain the simulation and Troi's perception. Though... maybe Troi could have picked up on some unease at being in a room with a bunch of humans if that were the case. 🤷
This is one of the first episodes of TNG that I remember seeing as a child and definitely the first I ever saw with the holodeck. I had no idea it could do everything, I thought it was just for recreating crimes at first. I don’t think either Riker or Manua were lying. The truth was probably somewhere in between. Riker doesn’t think he was as flirty as he was in his report. And Manua didn’t realize how lonely she was or how much she was acting out over her neglectful husband. It’s partially to do with memory, they literally remember the events differently from their perspectives.
I was on a jury for a trial involving sex-assault charges. I was very surprised that we (the jury) were informed that in such cases that the accusers claim alone can be sufficient to convict. That didn’t seem right to me. Luckily in this particular case the victim was very believable, the defendants counterclaims and defense was nonsensical, and there was additional circumstantial evidence, so none of us had any doubts about that aspect of the case (we did have some debates about other, non-sexual assault components of the case & charges). If it had come down to just her word versus his word, I couldn’t of, in good conscience, said “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. “Likely guilty”, sure, but not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Yes, such false accusations are exceedingly rare, and statistically a particular given case wouldn’t be such, but it’s not non-existent. I have seen (in non-court settings) people suffer from false accusations before (not of a sexual assault nature mind) and they have no recourse, but in our jurisprudence system you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, that does unfortunately add yet another hurdle to prosecuting sex-assault cases when there are already several hurdles to doing so, and such crimes are amongst the most heinous tier of deprivations that humans can inflict upon one another, but I can’t justify lowering the evidentiary threshold to such a low level to simply always believing the accuser without further corroborating evidence. Until the stigma that keeps victims from going to the authorities rightaway (ie soon enough that forensic evidence can be collected) I don’t see how we can improve the prosecution rate for such crimes and put these disgusting people where they belong.
@@gregweatherup9596 there should be three vertical dots either at the top or bottom right of your comment. Click that and a tiny menu shoild appear with "edit" at the top of it.
@Bustedsim thanks for the help but unfortunately I don’t see any 3 dots. If I click on the comment a menu does pop up, but “edit” is not one of the options. Maybe because I’m on safari on mobile? Do you need either the YT app or to be using a full computer to get that option?
@@gregweatherup9596 hmm. Been awhile since I've used safari, so I'm not sure how different it is from the app. And I'm blanking on how if the browseron my computer does it, which I can't check for awhile. Gotta be possible somehow though right? I'm sure we'll figure it out, might just take a bit. Good luck!
I love the conversation. Honestly, I think that's one of the reasons this is such a good episode is that it's very thought provoking. It shows how two people can experience the same thing and come to different conclusions - and how those conclusions might bias what they remember. Without being longwinded, I think the differences shown are generally differences between intent and action, perception and emotion, and the failures of memory as a medium of information storage in general.
The entire situation is described in the episode title. I learned long ago that there are 3 sides to every story and situation, in this case Riker's, the wife's and what actually happened.
This is definitely Star Trek's attempt to do their version of "Rashomon". The classic Japanese film about several people who witness a murder and when questioned by the authorities, all tell different versions of what happened, based on their own perceptions and beliefs.
What I would want from this episode is that after this trial we get to see Federation restorative justice where Riker reflects on how he misunderstood her intentions.
Riker was holding back from his testimony. In her version, he makes reference to Rapunzel, which is unlikely for an alien to come up with on her own. The reality of that situation was somewhere in the middle. They were both into it in the moment, but were both remorseful about it and lying to themselves. And as Costanza once said "it's not a lie if you believe it"
Understandable that the GGs don't like "not knowing". But this was the late '80s-early 90's. The concept of "date rape" was still new. It would have been exceedingly difficult to wrap up that subplot in a respectful manner without it taking over the main story. (Especially when the writers had to push out a script in only 2 weeks on average to get to 26 episodes.) I decided that Riker flirts (a lot) more than he realizes, and the wife was more ambitious/greedy than her self-image, and left it at that.
I really appreciate your discussion afterwards about the consent issues and how it's treated in art and society. Hopefully we're getting better at dealing with it, though I'm afraid these issues will always be with us.
I've been accused falsely of that kind of thing. The person stole from me and told that lie to assassinate my character in court. It does happen. Your reasoning is upsetting as somebody who went through that.
Lots of people have experience with false accusations. 10% of accusations are provably false, as in there's an ironclad alibi. And there's a lot more than that which can't be entirely proved as false, but there's also no evidence that the accusation is real either. Charges don't even get filed in the vast majority of cases, which hides the true number of false accusations.
15:00 While using women lying about rape can be upsetting to some people, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen. There has to be some balance because on the other hand, automatically depicting men as the aggressors has created this inaccurate image of sex abuse.
10% of accusations are provably false, as in, there's an ironclad alibi. But 64.7% of accusations do not result in charges because there's just no evidence a crime occurred or the supposed victim insists no assault occurred (for example, it was consensual but a parent, spouse, etc. is in denial). It's appropriate that we see an alien species here explicitly reject the American/Federation standard of innocent until proven guilty, and we see just how unfair that is to the accused. Many would like to invert the standard for accusations of sexual crimes, and regardless of how virtuous their intentions, it's more important to society that we do not let them succeed.
They wanted to do Rashomon, except "A Matter of Perspective" is a bit more reconcilable vs. Rashomon and its typical homages, which are usually flat-out contradicting accounts in ways that are impossible to be true, making at least one or more witnesses unreliable narrators. To whatever extent Riker's testimony may have been affected by not realizing his own flirtatious tendencies, the same could be applied to Mrs. Apgar's recollections. Also, keep in mind, as witnesses, both are aware of the immediate repercussions. (That said, when I first saw this as a teen, I totally had the same feeling, that the lack of direct resolution of that issue was a tad dissatisfying.)
@@Jar0fMay0 Ah, so beaten out only by the Cardassians with their 100% conviction rate. To return things to the ST vein. 😉 "Of course. It would be a waste of time and resources to prosecute the innocent."
Both her and Riker just misinterpreted events, and neither is "wrong" or "right" in that sense. Hence the ending not trying to tie a pretty little bow around that particular conflict.
False accusations of sexual crimes are likely to be higher, maybe even quite alot higher than we think. I always thought it was 3 percent cause thats an often cited percentage. But that number bases on a study that was not representative. It only looked at 100 cases of one DA's office in Germany. Other sources, police districts, other DA's and such point out much higher numbers or higher numbers of dismissed cases. (The latter indicate, that the dark number of false accusations could be higher. But this is about Germany. Also one has to take in account that sometimes its pretty hard to proof an assault and of course the dark number of cases not brought to the police or dismissed by the police. Its wise to think its likely to be higher than 3 percent but we just dont know how high it is. (Again Im tslking about Germany) But important: Even someone who did it but got away with it is to be looked at as innocent no matter what I believe. Thats how the system works.
I'll never understand why people have this inability to watch something that involves a group of certain individuals (men/women, white/black) and think that somehow this one situation/incident is somehow indicative or representative of all people in said groups. It can be just those individuals doing it, that women was lying to get revenge, or that Starfleet officer lying to protect his reputation, because people DO do those things. But one doesn't equal All.
All they had to do was find another reason that the scientist was mad at Riker. Maybe make it his daughter and completely consensual. So the difference in the testimony revolves around his conversations with him. Have them argue over the red tape. I don’t know. But change that one plot point and it goes from cringe to an interesting who done it.
Hmmm... Paula's microphone level was quite low during this one. And on the topic of false rape allegations: It seems like you don't like to think about it too much Paula, but it does happen, and definately not as seldom as you would like to believe. There was a very prominent case of it here in Germany, where a famous weather caster came under suspicion. It went to court. And it turned out that the woman was lying. She made the whole thing up because she was mad at the guy, because he had an affair with someone else. He got aquitted of all charges, but it nearly ruined his carreer. He sued her for damages. And as long as these cases exist, however rare they are, one never should take someone's rape allegations at face value.
how exactly do you know it doesnt happen all the time, people should always need evidence, to state that something is so, you said no victim blaming or shaming, but just remember, if riker didnt do it, the HE is the victim.
Riker is the victim, absolutely. This episode proves the absurdity of guilty until proven innocent, and the absurdity of going on unreliable witness testimony instead of physical evidence.
The Rashomon episode of the series. It's not the worst take on it that I've seen, but in trying to think of more examples I'm coming up empty. What are some other shows with episodes using this formula?
@@jonathanross149 Thank you friend. Some X-Files episodes like this exist too. It's funny because it's definitely a trope but it's not so overused as to be ubiquitous like bottle episodes or something.
It is pretty absurd that Paula takes the position that "I personally don't like any stories that use a woman lying about sexual assault as a plot point because it gives people the idea that it happens a lot and it truly is very rare." -Taking the position that only 1 side is valid to serve as a plot point is absurd. -That logic itself is likely not consistent if something being rare means it shouldn't be a plot point. She likes shows about people casually traveling between stars. Those people are pretty rare are far as we know. Does she like shows about murders or big heists? ( both of these are quite rare). -How does she define very rare? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? I suspect this is her bias just assuming something without any data since no data or studies are referenced. Also, the decision to make it open ended makes the episode 100x better. The real world isn't 100% black and white despite what some people want. -She further shows a real lack of empathy "I think it's such a disservice to actual victims men and women who are victims of sexual assault. She just completely doesn't even try to care about the victims who are falsely claimed. Even if it is "very rare" to pretend that such victims do not exist is absurd. "There's no reason to lie about that stuff." Ummm what. Tons of reasons easily come to mind if you think for a second. It could easily be used as blackmail, as a way to try to ruin someone's career, as a way to try to get something in court, etc
It's 10% of accusations that are provably false. As in, there's an ironclad alibi. But 64.7% of cases never get charged due to lack of evidence, or lack of crime.
Yeah, I don't think Riker was doing anything wildly inappropriate, but I'm sure he was being flirty with Apgar's wife, and probably felt guilty about it later and made his recollection of the events portraying him being more standoffish.
This actually should have been a great way to highlight the differences in culture between species. It would have been great to see that her polite formality seemed like a come-on to Riker and his rejection of her advance was step one in her culture's mating rituals. TNG gets some things SOOOO right, but they make every species have western European manners and customs (like a wedding or sexual fidelity at all!). Anyway, they let a chance slip away and we got a pretty blah episode as a result.
if i lived on the enterprise, i would avoid riker after this episode. there's a long history of cis men sexually assaulting people and believing they're doing nothing wrong. that's what happened to me. i'm pretty sure he still thinks he did nothing wrong. and the way the crew react, that he would never do something like that. that's what people say about their abusive friends all the time. not a moment of consideration for the victim. particularly bad in the episode because troi magic means they know for a fact she isn't lying. if it were up to me i'd remove the plot point entirely.
God, I hate this episode; for all the reasons the gals mention, plus the fact that it's just a boring "courtroom procedural". The last thing I want to see in a sci-fi/fantasy show like Star Trek is something that reminds me of the most inane aspects of everyday life. I love Ron Moore, but even his best work (DS9, BSG) wasn't above the occasional filler episode. BTW, NO SPOILERS FOR NEXT WEEK!!!!!
Yeah, I didn't particularly like this episode myself. While I agree that there are distortions of perspective with the truth, I don't think the major elements of a story, especially something like sexual assault, would deviate that much. It was extremely jarring to watch and took my right out of the story immersion.
That's not what they are saying. At all. Quite the opposite, in fact. They're saying that the typical storyline up until recently (and certainly in the 90s) is that when a character brings up these allegations they are ALWAYS lying, in order to achieve some personal gain, or to ruin someone. That these types of storylines are damaging because they reinforce the opinion that they are liars. Therefore, there should be LESS of these types of stories, and MORE where victims of sexual assault are believed.
@@firefly24601 I disagree. It should be, take the allegation seriously but don't immediately believe the accuser. That's how you get "guilty until proven innocent"
Also she says it's rare without citing anything. I've seen studies suggesting that falsehoods are in the low 20s. If true, it's not a majority but it would mean that it happens often enough that it cannot be considered rare. Rare would mean less than 1 percent. Frankly, I don't buy that it's that low. Or even less than 5 percent. The truth is nobody knows.
@@redpillfreedom6692 I've literally never seen a study that suggests it's as low as 1%. The best data says it's 10% that the accusation is provably false, such as having an ironclad alibi. But a large majority of accusations never get as far as charges being filed, and 7% result in actual convictions. The point of this story is to show the unfairness and absurdity of having to prove oneself innocent.
Call Capt. Olivia Benson of SVU, I'm sure she's still alive in that time period. I always found this plot derivative, the false murder accusation (it happened to Scotty in The Original Series), the multiple perspectives. There's a lot of duplication as well because we keep seeing the same story retold. Btw, it doesn't help that Riker has such a reputation for being a "ladies man".
I hate this episode mainly beacuse there was no point to it and hate it cuz of the supposed implication on Riker Even if he WAS flirting it was mostly light hearted playful complimentary type not actually let’s do something cuz he knew she was married and Rieske has never been forceful with his advances this episode is such a MISS
