I agree that it's not about showing more sex. It's understanding how to portray real physical relationships in a mature way. The flipside of twee, melodramatic romance is pure physicality, devoid of tenderness. As I wrote earlier, part of the problem is lack of continuity. Many relationships are too short to be developed in any depth. But it's also that there's a divide at work: love without the suggestion of carnality, and sex without love. Both are products of a conservative approach, which has trouble dealing with sex in a grown up way.
Well lets face it, all they had in mind for ENT was: "We have a new cast of attractive men and women, how many times a season can we get them in their underwear--or better yet, naked!" A gay couple in Trek isn't about showing soft core pornography, but having a demographic present in a future where all boundries and bigotry are long since dead and buried. Having a female captain didn't mean she was burning her bra ever other week. Some recognition for LGBT would be nice is all I'd want to see.
I can see your point and I partly agree, but the fact is that the writers did manage to depict wonderful, believable friendships that slowly developed over time. As teacake mentioned before, this might be one of the reasons slash is popular. The relationship Trip has with Archer feels more real than the one he has with T'Pol, for example. Interesting point. If I had to choose, I'd go with some old school, non-carnal, Fred Astaire romance anyday.
So sex yes, lovemaking no. Trip and T'Pol rubbing each others feet, very sensual, Picard banging Vash and then running away, not so much. Star Trek can show true romance, so it is possible. Trip & T'Pol was one. Worf & Jadzia is another I though was handled nicely because there was a slow build up of the relationship, they didn't suddenly fall in love. Problem is, with the maybe/maybe not addition of Riker & Deanna, those are the only romances in all of Star Trek. It is of course possible for a relationship to be a close friendship and not a romance. If Star Trek is going to take the step to having a gay relationship, then there is going to pretty much at some point going to have to be a demonstration of physical affection shown on screen, to differentiate that relationship from a close non-gay bromance. I see Arab men holding hands in public all the time, part of their culture, and not enough of a indicator for the viewers. I'm Latin, men kiss of the cheek from time to time, again not enough for the viewers. As part of the overall story line, Star Trek would have to "spell it out" if there was a character who was gay. Otherwise we back to anyone of the show whose sexuality isn't depicted on screen or in dialog might be gay. Star Trek is a show, a performance, unless a fictional character's sexual orientation is shown, then from a certain way of looking at it, they don't have one.
I tend to agree with you on this one. As much as I love DS9, I didn't quite get most of the relationship choices. The relationship between Sisko and Yates being the exception.
Yeah well, I couldn't stand Ezri. Trek not only did a lousy job on depicting romance, but also on depicting counselors. That and I blamed her for taking the wonderful and gorgeous Jadzia away from me.
No. Beverley rejected Odan because she didn't think she could handle the Trill worm moving to potentially a series of humanoid bodies. The fact that this version of Odan host was female was not the issue. The Riker and Soren episode was "The Outcast".