The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Gay Trek: Coming Soon...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:24 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
It's always two men doing it that's the problem.

Lesbians or lipstick lesbianism or implied lesbianism or leather dominatrix Kira etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. That's fine, because it excites the teenage boys and their dads.
What if the two lesbians are of the more 'stereotypically' realistic variety: grumpy flat-chested or overweight masculine faced chain-smoking chicks with high-strung standoffish attitudes towards (male) authority? Would teenage boys and dads be as excited seeing them getting it on? At that point I might prefer to see two Hollywood dudes getting in on myself.

Quote:
It's not like a new Trek show would air on HBO anything, it would be network, so it would still be miles tamer than anything you can see on cable TV shows.
Good point.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:32 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
What if the two lesbians are of the more 'stereotypically' realistic variety: grumpy flat-chested or overweight masculine faced chain-smoking chicks with high-strung standoffish attitudes towards (male) authority? Would teenage boys and dads be as excited seeing them getting it on? At that point I might prefer to see two Hollywood dudes getting in on myself.
Hey, I don't know exactly what get's everyone's freak 'on - but it might do the trick for some!

But clearly, it's not always been an issue for Star Trek to use skimpy clothing and attire for the sexualisation of female characters across the board from regulars to guest stars, even when it was dubiously under the guise of 'progress' in the depicted future (although that didn't really work out when they tried miniskirts on the guys in very early TNG!) although I don't really think any of the later shows ever had as regularly miniscule/non-existent outfits as TOS probably did. And obviously that was to appeal to the male demographic. I know they had some shirtless Spock and Kirk to balance it out for some of the female viewers (with no doubt attendent blending of appeal thereof) but the whole thing was relatively easy going about sex even without showing it in gynocological detail. Though I think it got more blatant as it rolled into season 3.................but then virtually the whole show was down the pan by then, so what did they have to lose!

But I'd surmise that sort of actor description wouldn't come out of casting though!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 09-08-2011 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-08-2011, 01:24 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
You stated that Star Trek has already become "salacious" with its straight characters and you claim that you have an issue with this salacious content. If that is what you have an issue with then what does it matter if there is a gay character or not when the franchise is already salacious.
ah...the libral mentality of reckless morality. If we've gone this far why not further? No, that's no acceptable for me.

Quote:
What agenda is the media pushing? The media is not forcing you to conform to their view and they aren't forcing you to like their material. Why should they allow you to censor or change their product? You don't like it, don't watch. If you don't want your kids watching it don't let them, it's as simple as that. Parenting is far more influential then the media.
I didn't say anything about "force."
And I already covered the agenda.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-08-2011, 02:23 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I love it when petty homophobes cloud their bigotry by pretending to be moral. By the way, I have always wondered why reactionary folks watch a progressive franchise like Trek. Must be pretty tough to be confronted with this "reckless" emancipatory agenda all the time. But hey, you gotta have some masochistic pleasures in life.

Talking about reactionary scumbags, I wonder whether there are some Jacobins in the world of Trek. Perhaps Section 31 deals with the not so-enlightened folks in the future. I wonder what's better, clean executions or gulags. The latter sounds more productive, after all somebody has to do the simple work to enable the enlightened people to choose their occupation freely.
Seriously, in my totalitarian moments I'd consider such a story to be fun. Of course the heroes would have to break up the wicked Section 31 plots ... but you could do it in an ambiguous fashion that sympathizes a little bit with the Fed agents who do what has to be done.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-08-2011, 07:18 PM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
ah...the libral mentality of reckless morality. If we've gone this far why not further? No, that's no acceptable for me.
I still don't understand why:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Having a Gay person on the show will eventually lead to escalation of showing sexual acts
Couldn't the show become more morally reckless with the escalation of showing sexual acts with out a gay character? So why is the gay character a factor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I didn't say anything about "force."
Really:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
They are litterally pushing an agenda forcing those that like the franchise to either conform to their view or completely right off the genre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
And I already covered the agenda.
That was the second time you mentioned it but you didn't really explain it. What is the "gay agenda?"
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:26 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I still don't understand why:
A lack of moral responsibility...

Quote:
Couldn't the show become more morally reckless with the escalation of showing sexual acts with out a gay character? So why is the gay character a factor?
Of course and considering the declining morals it will continue with or without a Gay character. The decline merely takes another shape and form for the purpose of influencing others toward said agenda of absolute acceptance.


Quote:
Really:
YES, REALLY.
I used the word FORCE in the strict context of an ultimatum. Your context was aside from my own. "The media is not forcing you to conform to their view and they aren't forcing you to like their material."~Enterprise Captain.

I never said they were FORCING me to conform to their view or FORCING us to like their material. I said FORCING A CHOICE which they are doing. NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. Forcing a decision isn't the same as forcing to like or forcing their view. WHICH was the point of the analogy of music WHICH does give you more options. I can understand literalism but if by being literal you miss the point by drawing upon a context that was never presented then attention to detail becomes merely a tangent.


Quote:
That was the second time you mentioned it but you didn't really explain it. What is the "gay agenda?"
According to the AP sources within Holloywood have admited to blacklisting actors on the basis of their political stances (Like Dwight Shultz (Reginald Barclay) from further roles. They allude to and understood agenda that goes back shows like M*A*S*H whose goal was to present a liberal attitude against war and to present conservatives as dim-witted, daft and irrational. It also went into detail about how Conservatives attempted to fight back with shows such 24 which frequently depicted "the Ends Justifies The Means" to secure the country which brought issues such as torture and illegal detaining of suspects without accountability in a more possitive light or even 7th Heaven which was openly a Christian show with like ideals apparently having a political agenda aswell. (point of view of the reporter) But one thing was apparent on the Liberal side all these ...admittances were capture on film and in writing in the form of expose' books and video. Said article appeared this year.


Quote:
I love ...
Don't care.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 09-08-2011 at 11:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:34 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

You should care, gathering intelligence about the enemy is always beneficial.

Jesus did socialize with tax collectors, leprosy-infected people and in general outsiders. Jesus wanted to found an emancipatory collective which transcends the conventional boundaries of family or nation. Homophobia as well as nationalism and most other right-wing stuff is antithetical to this idea so you reactionary folks are heretics. Furthermore the anti-gay, pro-nationalism, pro-torture faction is obviously plain evil.

So yeah, I totally understand why you desire to pervert Trek. It worked with Christianity so why shouldn't it work with a stupid sci-fi franchise. But alas, Trek is so simple, its progressive principles are clearly visible so perverting will be pretty hard.

Last edited by horatio : 09-09-2011 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-09-2011, 01:27 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

A gay character in Star Trek. So what? Sexuality in Trek for the most part has been a detail. Kirk's exploits, not shown. Riker's exploits, not shown, and whatever lady's man character I'm forgetting about, still not shown. There have been a few episodes that dealt solely with sexuality, the TNG episode where Riker becomes involved with the alien that is moving against the sexual grain of her society and she was a she. Former Trill hosts in DS9, a few episodes dealt with Jadzia being reunited with former lovers, Jadzia being a man in her past life, now a woman, still the same. Never, that I can think of has Trek ever portrayed a male/male relationship of anysort on screen, always gone with the female/female, but who honestly cares.

If the story works then is a gay relationship immediately out of bounds? Since when has the spine of a Trek show centered around two people, guys or girls getting it on? If homosexuality was explored in any episode of any future Star Trek series then surely it would be a character study and not the foundation of the show.

I always thought there was potential with Reed in Enterprise for this. That's about the only place I ever saw a gay character in Trek and he could just as easily be made straight. Does it matter? Only if you want to delve into a character study. I don't see why people are so put off by it unless they make a gay porn out of Trek and who the hell honestly thinks that would happen?

Besides, I'd imagine these issues are non-issues in the world of Trek and should be presented as such. Gay people do exist and they will exist in the 23rd and 24th century respectively, so 'there it is' as the guy in Amadeus said. If there is a gay character in Trek then they're a part of that world and they experience no prejudice. In the world of Trek no one seems to have a problem with race, ethnicity, class so why would sexuality be any different?
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 09-09-2011 at 01:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-09-2011, 01:52 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

You can't live peacefully together with species like e.g. the Denobulans who are polygamous (three spouses) as long as you have issues with human sexuality ... and homosexuality is not a matter of culture or choice but biologically hard-wired into us as well as some animals.
Same on the political level, you cannot found the Federation unless Earth is united.

One can discuss many things in Trek but there are some basic principles, the above two being among them, which are not open for debate or change.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-09-2011, 01:59 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
You can't live peacefully together with species like e.g. the Denobulans who are polygamous (three spouses) as long as you have issues with human sexuality

That's an excellent point.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 09-09-2011 at 02:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:35 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.