Decon blue porn. You know you want it

You know where this leads? Career ending moves like Meg Ryan and In the Cut (2003). No thanks, I'll stick to an older school of appreciation of the arts and not expect to see that kind of nonsense particularly in science fiction.

If I liked that garbage, I'd watch Humanoids from the Deep a sexual exploitation film from the 80s.

It wasn't that long ago that women were picked for jobs on the basis of their physical appearance, and to perpetuate that nonsense, especially on a show that supposed to be high-brow is backward thinking.

I would imagine then that the pathetic handbra scene with Hoshi was quite fine with several who have posted, though it wasn't relevant whatsoever. As long as that's the attitude, all it will do is make future generations of women have to put up with nonsense.

 

Maybe that's why they cut out Cumberbatch's shower scene from XII. In case it destroyed his career.

 

Everything escalates, you know it's true. So if you get your way, it's real physical sex going on in Star Trek. That's so much better, right?

How awful and disturbing this forum topic is turning out to be.

 

So when Kirk took his shirt off all those times in the 60's it led to.. DECON CHAMBER.

Problem with that though is Kirk was waaaay sexier. Except of course that time he was in those tights like things, but I'm sure some will beg to differ.

 

Are you arguing that ENT was sexist against women? Because ENT was always equal opportunity when it came to objecting it's cast members, how many times did we see Trip running around in his underwear?

 

You can't escape the slippery slope that's invoked by what pleases you on Star Trek. It's more nipples, I guess that makes it better?

And there are tons of things I've brought up that haven't been addressed...because you know that I'm right about depicted nudity particularly about it being abused regarding female nudity or sexual situations.

Let's turn that clock back and objectify women, and while we're at it, let's have more for the men as well. Equality all around, but not equality in terms of honoring their acting, but in equal time for nudity.

 

We saw the men a lot more than the women as far as states of undress go. And it was mostly tasteful as well as hot.. sure the decon scenes were tacky but could have been done otherwise and still had them in their underwear.

A whole fanvid about the blue undies..

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtTQQosvC7s[/yt]

 

Star Trek: a show not about what it means to be noble and benevolent, humanism, science and high art, but another T and A show aiming for mass appeal.

 

You know these things don't cancel each other out? Sexiness is not under the bed in a shoebox. It is there along with all the speeches about humanity and the stars.

 

Anyway ENT is tame compared to TOS and tame compared to Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the future which involved free sex for everyone and group marriages.Apparently he wanted earth to be portrayed as a nudist colony. In TOS you had scantily clad females everywhere, including the crew. You had Kirk and the boys attending a strip club. You had all the Kirk bonking (compare this to Archer's "I'm all backed up" talk with Phlox ). In TMP you had a whole race whose only seeming point was to be about the libido, same with the Orions. At least ENT cleaned that little bit of female sex slaves in Trek up with a cover story that sorta made it better.

 

Star Trek: not a show just about warp drive and exploring the stars, but screwing your fellow officers and rubbing them down with gel in the decon room.

What's next? Masturbation? Oral sex?

Fah! We had Orion slave girls. We had prostitution though she was a spy doing scans. Come on!

All that is just junk.

Imagine TNG S05e12 The Outcast. It's a sensitive portrayal about Riker (of all people) meeting an androgenous race and falling in love and romantically trying to rescue her. what do want to see? Them doing the nasty? That's better?

As it stands The Outcast will probably be remembered some day for breaking new ground and being sensitive. The other would probably be over the top based upon her description of how they mated.

Correction: TNG S05e17

 

I was disgusted by "The Outcast" - it ended with the "gay" alien being reprogrammed and everyone shrugging and getting on with their lives. What's the message there, send kids to "pray the gay away" because they can be fixed? Let those twisted camps be?

Apologies for the tangent.

 

The Outcast is really bad.. Trek attempting to do an issue based episode and ballsing it up. Same with T'Pol's AIDS episodes, though The Outcast was worse.

If someone doesn't like sex in Star Trek, fair enough. Their personal taste. But there is no way that ENT was more gratuitous than.. TOS. From nearly 50 years ago. ENT did not turn into Star Porn or Game of Starsex or whatever.. hardly. It acknowledged that adults have needs (Hoshi, Risa.. terrible convos with Archer.. T and T) and most of the time it was fine about it.

Decon was silly. It was tacky. It was scientifically dumb. It was not the beginning of some sex apocalypse.

 

I'm all for Trek sex in its fascinating infinite varieties.

But the sex Trek actually does best due to censorship/restrictictions: sublimated and repressed desire.

 

Vulcans, Vulcans and more Vulcans.

Oh we can throw a little J/7 in there too..

 

But you're also assuming that viewers can't tell the difference between love and sex. Riker and Soren clearly had more at stake than the physical. Let's compare that Mirror Universe Kira, who sought almost nothing but the physical -- she never tries to redeem herself through genuine intimacy, and is much too narcissistic to consider the feelings of others. But regardless, there's still a clear difference. And in both cases, regardless of quality of story, the episode didn't demand Soren or Mirror Kira to confuse or shoehorn love in place of sex or vice versa. Viewers should be smart enough to recognize that.

And that's part of the irony that's supposed to make this thread fun. The decon chamber serves almost no story purpose whatsoever -- after all, there's a reason why it fell into disuse in later seasons. No matter what kind of lip service the Powers That Be may give, it's still gratuitous. But for once, enjoying the gratuitous is an option, because removing it from context inversely makes more sense than shoehorning it into an episode about alien germ warfare and artificial drama.

Keep in mind, nobody's bumping nasties in this room. Nobody is sexually harassing each other. Sure, there's some mild flirting, but boundaries are clearly established by the characters as well (very few can shut 'em down like T'Pol, for one). There is no violation of consent (compare that to every time Troi gets mind-raped in TNG!).

Here's the thing -- Trek may be an all-ages show, but it was rarely condescending, too. The expectation, for every incarnation, is that adults could handle its material. If a little bit of skin and nudity is enough to throw off a viewer compared to everything else in the episode (explosive decompression? vaporization? flesh-eating bacteria? all-out war?), then just exactly how mature is that viewer to begin with? There's a big difference between saying, "OMGboobs" and "That is a beautiful body." The former is the mindset of teenager -- inexperienced, ignorant, immature. The latter acknowledges that it's a human being and that there's a certain amount of respect owed, both of which comes from celebration, not objectification, of who's on screen. And yes, it is quite possible to appreciate someone's body without resorting them to an object, because it comes from not being a jerk.

 

Nudity isn't truly the issue here. I have no problem with nudity. The issue is the writers, directors, and producers deciding that, "Wouldn't it be lurid if we set up decon as a way to show some skin to improve ratings?" To me that's an abuse of the actors.

Is it an abuse to show a shower scene after a difficult inner struggle over some issue, but not actually show anything? No. We are very vulnerable when alone and in the shower, we might actually show our face because of the solitude. That doesn't have to mean T and A.

Is it an abuse to show people in bed together being both playful, sexual, and tender? No, it's a normal human aspect of intimacy, and there's a wide range of vulnerability and emotion besides sexuality that happens within that context.

Is it an abuse to show sexual situations outside of the bedroom? Probably not. As couples especially, who developed a bond and true closeness, people sneek off and kiss, fondle, caress and some nudity might happen in unexpected places because couples find the time to make those happen or they happen spontaneously.

What is an abuse is to set up situations to show skin under a medical situation to allow the viewer to oogle the actors with implied sensuality. Then use those scenes to replay within dream sequences to give the writers an out, but not actually let the actors explore a healthy normal sexuality.

There's a difference between porn and relationships leading to love. Porn is gratiuitous, cares about physical attributes, not feelings. It's largely selfish and about self-pleasure and is disinterested in the Other.

None of which is really about being a fan of Star Trek, but about "give me more". To me being a fan is about having an appreciation for the actors and crew. It's not demanding to sate my appetite. I'm a fan because of a sincere appreciation for what they do, not demanding they do more.

The slippery slope of always demanding more gratuitous situations is terrible because it reduces the actors to playthings, dolls for adults, to satisy us by sexual situations, and actually ends up disempowering the actors.

When you demand a high level of gratuitous nudity, then you set up a physical standard for the actors, for the implication is every actor is going to be utilized at some point to appear nude, and so must have a high level of physical perfection.

So instead of a Star Trek that reflects societal norms in terms of the range of human appearance, the actors will all be prime physical specimens. I don't know about you, but I'd rather they have high acting ability than large breasts and big packages.

One can have both, but why would we expect that it's fair game to demand things which in any other profession would be sexist and lewd and ultimately illegal and discriminatory?

And who in history has paid that price over and over? Women mostly as a result of existing power structures of patriarchy. That's even still largely true with a very small portion of women directors in Hollywood, and a miniscule amount of women controlling corporations. Your way disempowers the actor and reempowers the very ones who abused their power historically.

The conversation is immensely distasteful, for nudity shown in a healthy relationship, to convey vulnerability, and is sensitive about using that method, all can empower an actor. That's why I find the attitude so selfish to raise an expectation to do it any time simply for a thrill. It's shallow, ungrateful, and puerile.

Re: The Other
As an older viewer who lived through the tumultous sixties and beyond, in which love became less defined by society, and more by the individual, I'm more patient about what I expect to see on television. The crew doesn't have to fix society, but usually if thoughtful attempts to deal with ongoing issues within society and to offer some solutions as well as the many voices within that society.

The decision to show brainwashing replicated repugnant gender reassignment counseling that was inflicted upon the homosexual community in fact. Prior to say the early seventies, being homosexual was consider a mental abberation according to the DSM and so people were actually institutionalized for that reason.

Showing that the same thing was actually going on in human society was not saying that was the answer, but the horror, and so was important to the story. It's up the viewer and hopefully the fan, especially the fan who knows folks in the gay community that that was taking place during the historic period in which the show was on.

Can Star Trek go further? Maybe, but not always, for there are always controversial limits, and if Star Trek becomes preachy and a bullypulpit then it's no longer Star Trek. We need to change ourselves, not Star Trek, and not expect for it to fix society.

 

I recall that as TNG was winding down, back when internet forums were just getting off the ground, the Trek forum at AOL had a lively discussion about the future of the franchise on film. One of the things that was discussed and advoated by many, was the injection of some kind of sexual content. Most agreed that it was about time.

According to some here, I guess it still isn't.

 

If you think I'm one who doesn't want sexual content, then you're making a conclusion that's not based upon my statements. Perhaps you should reread those comments.

It might be that the best future for Star Trek would be on HBO, not the typical networks, which would give the writers more leeway.

The only nudity and sexual situations which I find unwelcome are the gratuitous ones which add nothing to the story and imply sensuality in ridiculous situations.

Nudity and sexual content within norms and not just nudity for nudity sake would be fine.