I agree that the physical exposure is very modern. Carol isn't coy at all. Her attitude is "It is what it is, and I look great, but you better show respect, mister." The male gaze gets its ass kicked.
Trek's lowest moment
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I agree that the physical exposure is very modern. Carol isn't coy at all. Her attitude is "It is what it is, and I look great, but you better show respect, mister." The male gaze gets its ass kicked.
Shahna is likely wearing three (or more) times as much covering as unclad Carol.
Last edited:
^That's because Shahna is wearing shoes(not seen in the above image).
I'd watch that.
If only the Enterprise bumped into the NSEA Protector
When one or more of the mythological human Gods provide evidence of their existence as compelling as the Bajoran Orbs, there will cease to be any superstition, ignorance or fear involved in the belief in them. As it was, Picard would have recognised the evidence of the Prophets' existence as supremely powerful beings in the same vein as Q - indeed, Picard had been sparring regularly with a being that could be described as a "God" for three years by the time he made that statement - and would not have presumed to lecture Opaka or Bareil on Their existence. He may have expressed concern about the Bajoran people following the path of the Prophets without a clear understanding of their will; as Deanna Troi once said, "That's the problem with believing in a supernatural being: trying to determine what He wants." As long as the Bajorans are doing good in the name of the Prophets, Picard would probably leave them alone.
I stand corrected. A belt, collar, gloves & bigger shoulder straps, resulting in less cleavage & a covered naval. The exposure of risque areas is very nearly equal. She'd be more covered in only assless chaps, but it would be more exposed. Context. It's a slave girl bondage outfit. How is someone being shown in underwear for mere seconds more demeaning or offensive than someone who's only outfit throughout is a sex slave getup? I find Shahna's outfitting to be more debasing. Also, neither of them are unclad, so maybe we both exaggerated a smidge?
Last edited by a moderator:
It's still hypocritical for a Federation officer who supposedly believes in the right of cultures to believe what they will (even his own) to rant that way about religious faith.
But he's in good company I suppose, our Secular Left can't stop being hypocrites either. "Diversity" only includes those who agree with what they think.
It was ok...I was half expecting it at some point. GR in the 60s while leaning heavily towards the secular/atheist PoV was at least still respectful of religion in others (witness the wedding in "Balance of Terror" or the end of "Who Mourns for Adonias").
By the time TNG came around, he had become a hard-core atheist and made no bones about it.
Last edited:
Which has nothing to do with this thread.
^Actually, it does, since the writing reflects the leanings of Hollywood's creative types. in the 90s (when that ep was written) we were going through one of those periodic eruptions of militant secularism/atheism that pop up from time to time.
So the writing can be said to reflect GR and the times it was done in, but it's still hypocritical for a supposed supporter of "diversity" and "tolerance" to make such a bigoted remark about another's beliefs.
So the writing can be said to reflect GR and the times it was done in, but it's still hypocritical for a supposed supporter of "diversity" and "tolerance" to make such a bigoted remark about another's beliefs.
This is the "rant":
One has to be pretty thin-skinned if one views this as dogmatically anti-religious. It was more anti-pagan than anti-Abrahamic, it was more about having an issue with the fairly primitive form of religion the Mintakans reverted to, basically a quasi-polytheistic one in which believers try to interpret the will of the deity in order to be able to make deals. Sacrifices fruits/goats/virgins for good weather and this kind of thing.
I doubt that Picard would have problems if he encountered a species which practiced something monotheistic like Judaism, i.e. a religion in which God becomes less of a guy whom you can bargain with to prevent catastrophes like in polytheism but more of a signifier for abstract things like the law and so on (there is nothing behind the curtain, the holy of holies literally just holds the law which is not that unsimilar to how we treat e.g. our constitutions). Of course plenty of monotheistic believers still primitively try to read the will of God and so on but here I gotta agree with Picard, this is the very opposite of enlightened.
This "rant" was also about the Prime Directive, not wanting to mess with the natural development of this species. Given that our own species has developed from polytheism to monotheism to atheism (this is of course just a short-hand for a trend, for how many people have been poly-/mono-/atheistic over history) I do not find it unreasonable to depict a similar development for the Mintakans.
The thing that makes it low is the way she poses while in her undies.
Yeah, just turn around, face Kirk, show him everything, then tell him not to look!
But I dont think it is bad as some make it out to be anymore. The whole point of the scene was that Kirk was sneaking a peek.
He was being a normal.
What I found kind of weird in Trek is when women are wearing unusually skin tight or skimpy clothing and everyone, particularly the males, act as if they don't notice.
That's kind of low, as in insult your intelligence.
Counselor Troi in that cleavage bearing dress? Everyone acted like they didn't notice lol.
Seven of Nine in that skin tight outfit with her figure? At least ensign Kim acted normal and noticed and tried to hit on her.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's unfair to call that an anti-religion rant. 2 sentences is hardly a rant. Plus, the comment was about the fact that they had naturally evolved into an atheistic culture, which had now been influenced into belief in a false god, potentially stripping them of what Picard calls an achievement. If anything, this is a pro-atheism comment. Advocating an absence of religion is not the same thing as condemning its presence. Picard has shown on multiple occasions to be tolerant & supportive of all people's beliefs, & in one instance even seems to suggest his own philosophy is not entirely atheist.
The second comment about sending them "back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear" could be relative to the current context, of them falling into the false god belief, which Picard has been advised will likely cause cultural degeneration. Forcing a false god on these people would be inviting a dark age of superstition, ignorance & fear. Whether he is reflecting on our own historical dark ages, or perhaps one that this culture endured, that statement is not in itself an indictment or condemnation of all religion
To see his remark as such is extremist. All he is saying is he wants to do right by these people, as they have been
No, he's saying far far more with the way he says it.
https://youtu.be/n6NPq_kPSUM
It's not just the words, it's the vehemence in the way he spits out words like "superstition" with disgust in his voice.
He refers to the Mintakan abandonment of their faith as an "achievement", as if it is a GOOD thing to abandon religion.
Now that may be entirely consistent with GR's militant atheism, but for a supposedly "tolerant" and "diverse" Federation officer to be so utterly bigoted against religion is a low low mark indeed.
ETA: Who says that these events are not intended by a divine figure to rekindle the Mintakan faith and draw them back from atheism? That none of the people in that room even ask the question is more bigotry against religion.
To not reflect a religious point of view in everything you say on the topic is not bigotry against religion. It's just a difference in perspective. As to how he behaves. He said it was horrible. He acted as though it was horrible to him. It still doesn't change what I'm saying
Similar threads
