LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)

hahahahahaha I also saw that documentary. scary stuff. Perhaps Louse and Harry are what Kirk/Spock are to many of the female Trek fans. Nonetheless it does not mean they are couple or are and should be gay. It so twisted to see these women/girls read sex into everything.

 

Sorry, yes, I was responding to Cara007.
For what it's worth, Joss Whedon's shows in general are very slashy. It was pretty well spelled out that Angelus and Spike had sex at least once during their evil years together, and it was strongly implied that Xander and Spike had sex off screen. It was also implied that Giles had romantic feelings for Ethan.
I'm not insulted that straight women write slash. Some of them also write gay professional fiction. Some gay people have written fan fiction, and books about straight people. What's wrong with that?
Slash doesn't break up hetero couples. Those couples can continue to live and love in their canon universe. Slash stories,as with any fan fiction, take place in their own fictional alternate universes, and take nothing away from the canon stories. It's all fiction anyways. Nobody's getting hurt by slash, not in my opinion.
The gay entertainment site The Backlot even has a weekly article about slash. At least some gays really like slash. Some gays don't.
I don't get how slash disrespects females. How the characters are treated depends on the writers. If some slash writers are misogynistic, so are some mainstream hetero writers. The problem there is misogyny, not slash.
I generally think "Real person slash" is creepy and don't go anywhere near it. Slashing fictional characters is one thing, but any kind of fan fic about real people just really weirds me out.

 

There was actually a US or UK study with IIRC a fairly good sample size that recorded heterosexual female arousal to various types of pornography based on genital engorgement, and male homosexual pornography came out significantly on top, followed by heterosexual pornography and female homosexual pornography (interview response after the tests OTOH put heterosexual pornography on top).

It's difficult to interpret of course (cultural factors are relevant, for one, but also most heterosexual pornography is fashioned solely with a male audience in mind; it may simply be a matter of homosexual pornography having more to offer to a viewer interested in male performers and their range of behavior - clearly the material used can bias the results), but clearly it's possible for heterosexual females to get something out of male homosexual sex.

 

It disrespects females because the females are most of the time written as bitches and whore and just too difficult to understand and tolerate. which is why the men have no choice but to leave them and get with his male best friends because he is so much easy going.

It disrespect the female because the females are written as OOC.

it also disrespect females because the slash fans can take things too far and start demanding that the heterosexual pairing be broken up so that their slash can become canon. I have seen this with one direction and Trek fans.

this two scenarios is very disrespectful to the straight pairings.

I personally never saw slash in any of Joss work. Joss was very clear on separating his gay and straight couples.

I dislike is when people are so desperate to read sex into everything. there is always a fine line between sisterly, romantic or platonic love. People blur these lines on purpose because it is a turn on for them.



Sho you hit the nail on the study with the IIRC. I do not personally care what people enjoy or what turns term on. However what I care about is when they start enforcing it on the main audience and the general public. that to me is when things get bad.

Please am not saying this to be offensive, Its just my opinion and personal beleifs but the reality of the situation is that 95% of the world population is straight. 97% of the USA people are straight. There are more people on earth including myself that believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and it does not need to be redefined.

The harsh reality is that the heterosexual pairings are always going to be the most relevant and most important parings in any TV or film because it represents and has always represented the human structure of our civilization and you will always have a male/famale romance in any form of media because 97% of the people on earth in relationships are in one.

This is the reason why It is not fair and right for many female fan writers to campaign for the destruction of the heterosexual male/female pairing just because they enjoy male/male pornography.

Christopher, I am not generalising. I keep using the term some and many. I didn't say all the female fans.

 

^Again, the problem is that you're generalizing, talking as if all of it were written the same way as the particular variety of it that you dislike. Fanfic writers are as diverse as anyone else, so they don't all write it the same way.

 

As Christopher says, you're generalizing. There's plenty of slash out there with well written female characters.
I've read interviews where Joss talked about slash and how it actually influenced his work, specificly in how wrote Buffy and Faith's relationship. He said something to the effect that fans were welcome to bring their own "ship" with them. So he embraces slash, and there's been essays written about the slash aspects of his work.
I'm certainly not trying to enforce what anyone watches or reads. TPTB do that, and they do it with an extreme heterosexist viewpoint most often.
Your opinion on enforcing inequality in marriage isn't really relevent to the discussion, but since you brought it up, given your hostility towards slash, and now you reveal you're against equality for gays, I am scepticle of your previous stance that slash is offensive to gays, and can't really take a further conversation about "fair and right" very seriously. You can't really expect me to agree that I deserve to be treated like a second class citizen I hope. I don't mean to be unkind or hostile, but this is as nice as I can be when told I shouldn't be treated with equality and fairness.
I'm pretty ok with 90 percent of media representing heterosexuality (not sure 97% is a really accurate number, that feels very high to me. Most statistic say about 10% of people are LGBT, and the number may be higher due to skewed data from people being dishonest about being gay. Orientation in any survey is going to be self reported, and some people wouldn't feel comfortable admiting they aren't hetero in a survey.) Not that the numbers should matter all that much. In the subject at hand, sci fi and Trek in particular are far beyond any fair numbers of positive gay male representation. Female representation is somewhat better.
Trek Lit has given us same sex marriage as well established in the 22nd century with Tripp's brother and his husband. Hopefully in our lifetimes we'll see an end to prejudice and inequality as we've seen in Trek lit, which has taken Roddenberry's vision to the next logical level even if the tv series and movies haven't had the nerve and integrity to go there yet.
Slash comes in many flavors. Some of it porn, as is some straight fan fic, but it can also be PG or even G rated. It can be very sweet and romantic.

 

From Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, page 26: ". . . all twelve [why do I always remember it as five?] of the Sulamid sexes claim to be male, especially the ones who had the children."

Not exactly LGBT, but . . . .

 

I believe we are not aloud to post 10 replies here otherwise we can get banned. .this is my 6th post. I hope I don't make it to ten.

First of all I am offended that the best shot you can throw at me is saying I don't want equality. it is not inequality or hate to say you believe that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

Slaves in the 1600s were not equal but even their white slave masters believes that a slave man should be allowed to take a wife.

For me, Marriage is not an equality issue based on people's sexuality. Marriage was created for the two only living genders (a man and a woman) that our civilization depends on to come together as one functioning unit.

There are more people that defined marriage as that. It is my personal beliefs and conviction that I know in my heart to be true.

Please I hope you can respect that. Just as I will respect yours own opinion. that is real tolerance.

I am not a Muslim or a Scientologist. I don't believe in Scientology in fact the whole thing creeps me out but I am not campaigning that people should not build Scientology churches or mosque and not worship there. they have the freedom to do that.

The fact that you don't support something does not mean you don't like it.. your views just differs.

I don't force people to not redefined what marriage is. if they want too they have the freedom to do that. I just have a view that differs.

I am not hostile to gay relationships. I am hostile to the destruction of loving heterosexual relationship. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

gays are gays. they don't destroy het pairings. slash pairing destorys the heterosexual pairings because the standard canon sexuality of the characters are severely altered. I am heterosexual and I don't want my pairing to be destroyed.


Oh and by the way 97% of the world population are straight. despite all the media and propaganda that comes out of the Hollywood. Straights outnumbers gays on a ratio of 9 to 1 and importantly 7 out of 10 people define marriage as one man and one woman.


If a person says they are gay. I will never force him to enter a straight relationship. If trek had a gay character. I will not read fan fictions where he is straight neither will I push or sign petitions to turn him straight on screen.

That will be unfair just like it is unfair for me to read straight characters as gays or have slash fans campaign that the straight characters be made gays because some women get turned on by that.

Did you hear of the SEE CONTROVERSY after the 2009 film ame out

It was a petition signed by slash fans to make Kirk and Spock as a gay couple cannon. however the campaign was soon abandoned because the majority of Trek fans did not want to see their characters altered that much. Others did not think it will be fair to break up an interracial pairing for a gay pairing.

So please trust me, I am well experienced with all the slash controversy and how they have effortlessly tried to ruin heterosexual pairings and this is why I do not like the slash fan fiction.

 

Cara, I'm sure you have good intentions. But reading over your comments, I think its pretty clear that its not really slash pairings you have a problem with.

That has absolutely nothing to do with slash pairings. That, coupled with your comment about mislabeled fanfiction, sounds to me like you just don't want to accidentally read gay fanfiction. And that's fine. No one is forcing you to do so. This is not some conspiracy.

Barring rabid fifteen year olds who just found fanfiction.net and published their first slash pairing and "R/R omg1111" .... slashers are not campaigning about the destruction of heterosexual pairings. Its a fantasy. A what if story. Star trek has always embraced AU.

At the end of the day, slash pairings harm no one. It might perpetuate some stereotypes, but that's another debate. If you don't like slash fanfiction, hit the back button. If gay marriage is really the thing that offends you, then... at least be honest about it? Trying to defend gays against 'slashers' is kind of offensive in itself.

Edit:

Please put forth evidence of this. When exactly has a slash fanfiction destroyed a heterosexual one? What are you basing this tirade off of?

 

I found this paragraph to be quite offensive, to be honest, because it reeks of the sort of pre-memorized "respond with talking point designed to re-frame the issue by side-stepping their complaint" rhetoric trick. It's smarmy and respectless.

But anyway, as an argument, it's naive. Of course denying same-sex couples marriage status causes inequality, as long as marriage comes with economic benefits, such as differences in taxation. Of course denying same-sex couples marriage status causes inequality, as long as marriage status is loaded with the symbolism Western culture ascribes to it.

"Cara knows in her heart it is true" is not a useful contribution to discourse for anyone but you, but culture is very much a product of discourse.

I'm a bog-standard heterosexual male, and personally, I couldn't care less and think you should probably, well, care less. I don't think that heterosexual relationships on television or in books are in any real danger of the Gay Conspiracy.

Which has no bearing on how sexuality must be presented in art whatsoever. Art is not a democracy.

 

I've never heard there was any limit on how often we can post in a thread.
I promise you that was not the "best I could throw at you". That was me bending over backwards to be nice to someone who just told me I didn't deserve full civil rights.
Your religious beliefs are none of my business and should have no bearing on my rights or how I live my life.
Slash fiction doesn't alter the "standard canon sexuality". All the slash fiction in the world won't destroy your pairing. I'm truly baffled at why you are so upset by this. Fan fiction is just to be read and enjoyed by those that are interested in it, and can be ignored and will have absolutely no impact on your life.
There is no way you have any more idea of the true percentage of gay/straight people any more than I do. We can both only give our opinions on that. I think that 7 out of 10 isn't accurate or is outdated, but what difference does it make? Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority. At one time the majority was against equality for women and racial desegregation. Sometimes the majority is wrong.
I'm not advocating forcing any kind of relationship on anyone.
I'm not sure what you even want out of this. No one is forcing you to read anything.
This current discussion is about fan fiction. It's all fiction, none of it is real. Your canon characters are all safe and heterosexual still.

 

The sexuality of the pairings are altered. Harry Potter would never have sex with Draco when he is married and in love with Ginny.

which means that in most slash fics, harry is always an adulterer who does not love his wife. He is also fooling around behind her back with draco.

In most slash Harry/Draco are always end game and Ginny is left alone or she settles for a guy that loves her. please how can you read that and not say the characters traits are not severely altered?

I also only brought up the marriage issue because my friend here is pushing for equlaity for LGBT and we all know that the most important equality to them is how we as a society should view marriage. so I had no choice but to bring it up.

I did not have problems with reading or watching a gay couple. willow/tera from buffy were fun to watch. I am a huge buffy fan.

I just don't want to see a loving heterosexual pairing get destroyed because of slash. I am on tumblr most of the time and you need to see the way many slash fans treat the heterosexual pairing and the female characters. They are so vile and hateful to it and I am sick and sadden by that.

Please read my earlier post on the SEE CONTROVERSY. It will give you more insight on why I do not like slash at all.

Many slash fans want their pairings to be cannonbut that will only happen at the expense of the loving heterosexual pairings. This is what I am against. Please understand me.

Sho what is naive is you not accepting my veiws on why I feel marriage should not be redefined. it is my veiws , views that many or more people share with me. SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE. gays are and should be alowed to enter into a legal and recognisied relationship. However the standard definition of marriage thathas existed for more then 5000 years does not need to be changed or redefined.

 

I really don't get your argument. So some people write stories that alter the characters, or put them into unusual dynamics, and/or come to different conclusions about the decisions they would make ... and? Why not? If you don't like them, don't read them?

I don't understand how gay fiction is supposed to hurt heterosexual relationships. Are you afraid that your fellow heterosexuals are so insecure and/or feeble of mind that they'll suddenly forget they like the opposite sex, or something? Let me help put your mind at ease, perhaps: No amount of fiction I've been exposed to that has featured homosexual relationships has made me less interested in women (it has, on the other hand, improved my ability to empathize with homosexuals, which I consider a good thing and a beautiful thing about fiction).

 

Unless JK Rowling herself writes it, then no, nothing has been altered.

Fanfiction does not dictate canon. Nor does it pretend to. I can sit here and write you a ten thousand page epic about Draco and Harry's sexcapades. Maybe it will even be brilliant. Probably not. But, even if I did do that, my work does not change the world that Rowling has created. It has no impact on anyone other than the people who take the time to read through my ten thousand pages.

Which is to say, it only exists in your canon world if you want it to. If you hate bad fanfiction...go write some good fanfiction!

I am a woman on the internet. I can assure you, I have seen my share of tumblr. And I will fully admit: tumblr is a wild dog that attacks itself at the drop of the hat for a myriad of social issues.

My suggestion to you would be this: leave tumblr. There is no gay controversy. A couple of petitions does not amount to anything. Did it change the trek universe? No? Your straight couple OTP was not harmed.

Nothing was harmed. Nothing changed.

I'm just...what? What does this even mean?

 

I don't see how this slash issue is any different from a fan who ships new series Kirk and Uhura instead of Uhura and Spock. Is anyone truly offended by Kirk/Uhura fan fiction?
So Harry Potter is offically gay in the HP canon because of fan fiction?

 

Umm, folks, let's remember the plea in the thread title: "no flames Please." Let's not make this about each other.

 

Reacting to a later edit.

* This is a discussion forum. We're having a debate. I'm not required to leave your statements unchallenged. Tolerance is about recognizing and respecting that you have a different opinion and have a right to that opinion, which I do. It doesn't mean I need to find your opinion to be of quality, however, or that I can't openly say that I consider your opinion to be misguided and harmful, which I do as well.

We don't live in a vacuum. The opinions we hold affect the lives of others, by way of the decisions we make and the way we act. "This is true for me and that's good enough" doesn't cut it. One needs to make an effort to have informed, balanced opinions.

* In the last 5000 years, a multitude of different cultures around the globe have used a multitude of definitions of marriage that vary quite significantly in their specifics, both legally and culturally. We've abandoned or changed many of those specifics because we found them to be unfair and harmful. I hope that process will continue.

* Even if you don't think it "needs to be changed", that doesn't mean it can't be if it improves the happyness of some folks. You've failed to make any convincing case for the negative ramifications of it, at least.

Let's be clear: I really like marriage! I think getting married is a wonderful statement two people can make about their commitment to one another, and a very useful, broadly understood social contract to signal that commitment to your peers. Now, I'm quite happy that I learned the lesson that the real price is to spend time with people from my own folks, who never got around to marrying - but I nevertheless consider myself to be quite the fan of the concept.

And I can't see any way in which allowing homosexual folks to get married impacts that at all.

 

We differ on our veiws. marriage was never a civil rights issue. USA has never redefined marriage despite the media propaganda unleashed on us. The Loving vs Virgina case that struck down an interracial couple from not getting married never redefined marriage.

What the US law said was the a man and a woman regardless of their color should not be stopped from getting married. As long as they are one man and one woman they have equal protection under the law.

Please that is not the same as saying a marriage is a union between two people.


Please answer me honestly, with this scenario. Would I be bridging your civil rights. if as gay man you wanted to use the women's dressing room to try on some cloths and I who is working in the clothing store insist you use men's dressing room only or leave the store would I be discriminating against you?

If you were in a court of law will you win the case by saying all that mattered is that you wanted to use a dressing room and it did not matter if it was the men's or women's dressing room.

would you win the case? of course not.

You can't compare race to gender with just two people. there is no difference between a white female and a black female or a white male and an Asian male. there are major differences between a man and a woman.

We have boy scouts and girls scouts is that equal or the same as white scouts and black scouts?

please race and gender cannot be compared. We are all equal but we are not the same.


the concept of marriage was never intended to be between just two people. it was intended for one man and one woman. the two living organism that life and human nature itself depends on to survive.

Them coming together to function as one unit was what marriage solely was created for. Additionally 90% of the time children are born and the child is loved equally by his mother and father raising the child together as husband and wife and even in divorce, the child would still forever have the love of his mum and dad. this is the standard structure of our civilization. marriage defined that. this is why I believe it does not need to be redefined.

I do sympathize with many gay people on this issue. Many of them are loving, nice and kind. I would not stop them in their fight for what they view as equality. they have every right and freedom to fight for what they believe in. However I can't personally change the purpose of what marriage was created for. am sorry.

 

^Please, please stop. This is not a thread for debating definitions of marriage. This is a thread for discussing characters in Star Trek literature. If you want to argue about something other than that topic, then please do it in a different forum.

 

I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not likely to make arguments based on the history of the legal definition of marriage in the United States. However, to my knowledge, marriage status confers economic benefits in many states of the union, and even after weighing many of the factors involved (including e.g. child-rearing vectors, etc etc.) it still seems to me that those should be available to all. (Though this is complex and really requires discussion of individual tax and subsidy schemes and their structures, goals and legal basis.)

This hypothetical seems a bit weird to me. Cross-dressing and homosexuality are not the same thing. Gay men don't implicitly want to wear women's clothing or even to be women, usually they just want to be gay men and use the men's dressing room like any other man.

I also have a co-worker who is a MTF transsexual, however, and this is actually an on-going debate that is still evolving. Questions like "at which point are transsexuals allowed to use which public restroom" can have widely different answers depending on the country you ask them in, and important legal decisions continue to be made on a yearly basis.

But back to your hypothetical: If I were a gay man, I wouldn't insist on using the woman's dressing room, and if I did and you asked me not to, no, I don't think you'd be discriminating against my rights. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the discussion, though ...

* Who intended it to be so, and why does their authority override the decisions we could be making today?

* There are many forms of reproduction in nature. Not all of them rely on gender.

* Why does allowing homosexuals to marry prevent heterosexuals from producing offspring? I don't understand.

You don't need to marry to become pregnant or even to successfully raise a child. My parents never married. Of course, getting married doesn't harm proceedings either (see earlier for my personal views on marriage).

* How does allowing homosexuals to marry prevent heterosexuals from getting married?

* How does allowing homosexuals to marry cause mothers and fathers to love their children less?

* Civilization seems to have counted homosexuals among its members for all of recorded human history. They seem to be no less or more productive members of society than heterosexuals. Why are they not part of its standard structure then?

Edit:

Yeah, you have a point. Cara: Let's continue this via private message or elsewhere if you want to.