RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,603
Posts: 5,425,053
Members: 24,805
Currently online: 499
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 26 2014, 11:17 PM   #316
geneo
Lieutenant
 
Location: WV
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

DonIago wrote: View Post
How many younger viewers have you asked?
Plenty in my community my dear friend. Plenty here and in Rockwall TX where my grandson lives, sort of like Cheers - where everyone knows your name. Based on my findings one can gather that there are lots more than you think.
geneo is offline  
Old February 26 2014, 11:26 PM   #317
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

geneo wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
How many younger viewers have you asked?
Plenty in my community my dear friend. Plenty here and in Rockwall TX where my grandson lives, sort of like Cheers - where everyone knows your name. Based on my findings one can gather that there are lots more than you think.
Well, yea, but, we already know small towns in West Virginia and Texas are Anti-Gay, but, that's a very tiny part of the 300 Million+ population in the US and the 6 Billion+ population of the world.

Obviously you don't know every SciFi fan in West Virginia, because, through the internet, I know two straight West Virginian Trek Fans, who would definitely welcome the diversity of a Gay character in a new Trek
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is online now  
Old February 26 2014, 11:39 PM   #318
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

geneo wrote: View Post
Only if the younger viewers are gay themselves. I don't know any younger viewers who are straight who wants a diverse cast, one that includes a gay character.
Considering that roughly three quarters of America's youth poll solidly in favour of same-sex marriage, I find your speculations about "younger viewers" straight or otherwise a bit suspect.

In general, it's pretty depressing that purported fans of a show set in the 23rd century should evince that much trouble catching up to the 21st. It is certainly not generally true of Phase II fans in my experience that they display the kind of petty, narrow mindset that would tune into or out of a show based on whether any of its characters are gay. That may have been a truism in the Sixties, it isn't so today.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now  
Old February 27 2014, 12:45 AM   #319
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Anecdotal evidence of complaining fans is no evidence at all. If "Blood and Fire" turned off some viewers it was probably because it was bad, overlong, and the relationship between the romantic leads was poorly played. Their initial "love" scene was longer than any single love scene in Trek history, and would have been just as lame with a straight couple.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 01:03 AM   #320
geneo
Lieutenant
 
Location: WV
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Maurice wrote: View Post
Anecdotal evidence of complaining fans is no evidence at all. If "Blood and Fire" turned off some viewers it was probably because it was bad, overlong, and the relationship between the romantic leads was poorly played. Their initial "love" scene was longer than any single love scene in Trek history, and would have been just as lame with a straight couple.
Straight or not, it didn't need to even be in there. But I admit I did not even watch it because I don't support that.
geneo is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 01:08 AM   #321
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

geneo wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
Anecdotal evidence of complaining fans is no evidence at all. If "Blood and Fire" turned off some viewers it was probably because it was bad, overlong, and the relationship between the romantic leads was poorly played. Their initial "love" scene was longer than any single love scene in Trek history, and would have been just as lame with a straight couple.
Straight or not, it didn't need to even be in there. But I admit I did not even watch it because I don't support that.
Be specific. What don't you support?
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 01:09 AM   #322
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Hazel wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Alright, your turn
Just to be glib for a moment, that's a bit like asking how you explain the absence of bees.
While bees are spoken of, they're never seen, however we do see lot's of people, and we hear of their relationships, marriages, attractions, and sex hook ups.

But not if they're gay.

So if we're still there, literally right there on the bridge and are not being ostracized (and haven't been edited from the genome) and we feel no need to conceal our sexual orientation, because God knows no one else on the ship does, then the reason ...


T'Girl is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 01:20 AM   #323
Hazel
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: UK
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Hazel wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Alright, your turn
Just to be glib for a moment, that's a bit like asking how you explain the absence of bees.
While bees are spoken of, they're never seen, however we do see lot's of people, and we hear of their relationships, marriages, attractions, and sex hook ups.

But not if they're gay.

So if we're still there, literally right there on the bridge and are not being ostracized (and haven't been edited from the genome) and we feel no need to conceal our sexual orientation, because God knows no one else on the ship does, then the reason ...


I can think of quite a few characters (minor ones, admittedly, and some of them very minor) who were never presented in romantic situations. Therefore, by my optimistic logic, every one of them was gay. List includes Hawk from FC, Icheb (one tiny crush on B'Elanna is not absolute evidence) random male and female Bajorans on DS9, that dude who sold Tribbles in TOS, and of course, Garak who was bi.

Sorry, I just can't get behind a ST where anything other than heterosexuality is repressed/oppressed. It's too depressing, not to mention unrealistic. After all, no-one made a fuss about Dax and her ex-wife except for the rigid Trill members; that must count a bit*

*I'm aware you can take it as as a metaphor for homophobia, but it's so much more pleasant to not do that

Let's forget bees then - we didn't see a representative of every country/race/nationality found on Earth, did we? Yet that doesn't mean Brazilians don't exist in the 24th century.

Last edited by Hazel; February 27 2014 at 01:46 AM.
Hazel is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 02:18 AM   #324
Misfit Toy
Caped Trek Mod
 
Misfit Toy's Avatar
 
Location: Transporter buffer
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

geneo wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
Anecdotal evidence of complaining fans is no evidence at all. If "Blood and Fire" turned off some viewers it was probably because it was bad, overlong, and the relationship between the romantic leads was poorly played. Their initial "love" scene was longer than any single love scene in Trek history, and would have been just as lame with a straight couple.
Straight or not, it didn't need to even be in there. But I admit I did not even watch it because I don't support that.
Ok, so you're a "no" to the idea of rights for homosexuals in the Star Trek universe, got it.

To everyone else - this is NOT a thread about geneo, so let's stay on topic. Thanks!
__________________
Woof.
Misfit Toy is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 03:34 AM   #325
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Hazel wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Alright, your turn
Just to be glib for a moment, that's a bit like asking how you explain the absence of bees.
While bees are spoken of, they're never seen, however we do see lot's of people, and we hear of their relationships, marriages, attractions, and sex hook ups.

But not if they're gay.

So if we're still there, literally right there on the bridge and are not being ostracized (and haven't been edited from the genome) and we feel no need to conceal our sexual orientation, because God knows no one else on the ship does, then the reason ...
... is that it's a flaw in a fictional universe that should be ignored.
PhoenixClass is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 04:27 AM   #326
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

^
That's not going to be easy.

Already, the previous attempts to address the concept are considered weak. "The Outcast" is seen as a 'noble failure' from T-Girl's (and other fans) point of view.

And let's face it, analyzing, criticizing and discussing the Trek universe is at an all time high (and often fun) now that we have social media and forums.

Heterosexuality is shown as being the default sexual behavior among 24th century humans.

Even the Outcast might have messed up a little bit--when Soren asked Riker about sexuality among humans, it went like this:

SOREN:And is that the kind of woman all human males prefer?
RIKER: Not at all. Some men like quiet, demure women... others prefer alot of energy... some respond only to physical attractiveness... others couldn't care less. There aren't any rules.
Riker could have mentioned something about same sex preferences at this point, but didn't.

The episode was supposed to be a analogy/message about homophobia.

At the same time, the Federation ostrasizing homosexuals? It still seems extreme.
Nightdiamond is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 04:56 PM   #327
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
... is that it's a flaw in a fictional universe that should be ignored.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.

If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.

Hazel wrote: View Post
I can think of quite a few characters (minor ones, admittedly, and some of them very minor) who were never presented in romantic situations.
A few of the reoccurring mid level characters were also not seen in romantic scenes, people like Sulu.

Therefore, by my optimistic logic, every one of them was gay.
Do you think that's why their sexual orientation was never presented on screen?

Sorry, I just can't get behind a ST where anything other than heterosexuality is repressed/oppressed. It's too depressing, not to mention unrealistic.
I have stated that other possibilities might exist, it's just that in-universe I really can't find one that fits. And "no gay" might just be a Human thing. We've seen few enough Vulcans with their orientations on display that credible we could say that we just haven't seen our first obviously gay Vulcan.

... we didn't see a representative of every country/race/nationality found on Earth, did we?
Gays exist in every country, racial group, and nationality. So it isn't a matter of Star Trek not depicting the one Human subdivision that has all the gays in it.

Yet that doesn't mean Brazilians don't exist in the 24th century.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
T'Girl is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 05:14 PM   #328
Hazel
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: UK
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
... is that it's a flaw in a fictional universe that should be ignored.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.

If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.

Hazel wrote: View Post
I can think of quite a few characters (minor ones, admittedly, and some of them very minor) who were never presented in romantic situations.
A few of the reoccurring mid level characters were also not seen in romantic scenes, people like Sulu.

Do you think that's why their sexual orientation was never presented on screen?

I have stated that other possibilities might exist, it's just that in-universe I really can't find one that fits. And "no gay" might just be a Human thing. We've seen few enough Vulcans with their orientations on display that credible we could say that we just haven't seen our first obviously gay Vulcan.

... we didn't see a representative of every country/race/nationality found on Earth, did we?
Gays exist in every country, racial group, and nationality. So it isn't a matter of Star Trek not depicting the one Human subdivision that has all the gays in it.

Yet that doesn't mean Brazilians don't exist in the 24th century.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
I understand what you're getting at T'Girl, I just see it at as metatextual issue, not intra-textual. It's troubling that there was very little queer representation in Star Trek, but it's troubling because of what it says about the people/culture that made Star Trek, not the fictional world within it (IMO, obvs).

People really like to nitpick analogies, don't they? Bees and Brasilians (with an S, then) were analogies: they weren't meant to be replicate the issue perfectly!

Here, have another analogy: I don't complain that I've never seen someone plucking their eyebrows or sitting on a toilet in Star Trek, but I'm going to choose to believe that humans still do those things.
Hazel is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 07:12 PM   #329
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
... is that it's a flaw in a fictional universe that should be ignored.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.

If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.

Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
Of course it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - it's a fictional world. Fictional worlds, even those created by a single author, often have varying degrees of contradiction and error. Star Trek has an extra handicap because it is created over decades by many different creators (i.e. everyone involved in making the shows).

Star Trek consists of two main components: what is shown on screen and the audience member's imagination. What is important, then, is how each audience member uses his or her imagination to resolve differences and fill in the gaps in the canon. You are using your imagination, it seems, to come to a rather depressing conclusion and I'm trying to understand why. I suppose it could be that you just read canon very literally and narrowly when combining it with the component of your imagination.

Oh, and the Oxford American Dictionary would disagree with you when it comes to spelling "Brazilian."
PhoenixClass is offline  
Old February 28 2014, 07:08 AM   #330
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Yet that doesn't mean Brazilians don't exist in the 24th century.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
"Brazilians" don't exist in the 24th century because hive collapse wiped out all the bees. No bees, no wax. No wax, no "Brazilians".

__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.