Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says

[fireproof78]

Optimism, Captain!

I'll keep that in mind

This.
I find the use of nudity in Game of Thrones cringeworthy. Some of it could be justified to show the nature of that rather... unrestricted and wild world. But they overdid it to the point of it becoming gratuitous.

Which concerns me because the show has been show successful (top pirated show or whatnot) which means other series are going to want to emulate it. Which is why CBS' announcement makes me skeptical as to their handling. I think their trying for a Game of Thrones style buzz around their show.

There was also a CG sequence added using a ship which actually wasn't introduced on the show itself until the third season. But neither this nor Chris Judge redubbing his lines is really relevant to the matter of the nudity.

Nope, it's not.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

https://christopherlbennett.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/mission-impossible-1996-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...ion-impossible-ii-2000-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...on-impossible-iii-2006-movie-review-spoilers/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...-ghost-protocol-2011-movie-review-spoilers-2/
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...ible-rogue-nation-2015-movie-review-spoilers/

So this proves… that you've watched and reviewed them sometime in 2014-15? Good for you.

When I have the time I'll give them a read.

It's relevant because context matters. You're treating all skin and sexuality as equally bad, and that's invalid, because it's the context that makes the difference.

Oh please. Gratuitous eye candy is gratuitous eye candy. At least in many of the movies JJ directed/produced. It's just that Abrams' STID was just too obvious than his usual style and finally everyone saw it for what it really was.

Everything else is just conjecture and projection from your part because I am actually in favor of nudity/sexuality in Discovery.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Exactly the kind of attitudes which many will likely have towards the show given the publicity already being seen. We risk overshadowing everything meaningful and genuinely progressive about the show with the perception it's just soft porn with space ships. Many WILL see it that way and miss more important aspects as a result

So... we should perpetuate the idea that beauty and sexuality are still demonized in the 23rd century so as not to detract from your preferred social messages? We negotiate some conservative philosophy so we're allowed some liberal philosophy?

We want people thinking about the issues being portrayed, not seeing the show as simply being yet another avenue for titillation. Yes the human body is beautiful, but it is already celebrated throughout the media to the point of saturation. There's nothing new trek can add here.

There's a lot of other shows with spaceships, Gay characters, and violence, too.

Why draw attention away from the many things that remain almost exclusively trek's domain, things that are sorely unseen throughout the media, especially if we run the very real risk it will be taken less seriously as a result?

The original Trek was always about an exciting and enlightened future for humanity, taking place in a colorful and exotic universe with no shortage of beauty and sexuality. If the 21st century audience is not going to take the show seriously because it is set in a less censorious future, then that tells you that it's important to emphasize that it takes place in a less censorious future.

Ok, it has absolutely nothing to do with "religious roots." My gf is not religiously conservative in any sense. She (and I, for that matter) are feminists, and how women's bodies are portrayed (re: used) in media is frequently a problem. I don't have the time or energy to explain this if it needs explaining, so I'll just leave it at that. Writing off criticism of sexism in media as a religious conservatism reaction is frankly ridiculous and misses the point completely.

Not if you know the history of Feminism and Western Civilization. The sex-negative memes that are being promoted in this thread were created by a bunch of sequestered monks with mommy issues in the Dark Ages, and they have shaped the negative views of sexuality in our society. Historically, Feminism, with rare exceptions, has not only promoted social and financial equality and freedom, but sexual equality and freedom, including free love, erotica, and prostitution. Two-thousand years of conservative religion has had a huge, ultimately immeasurable, impact on contemporary culture, and not just in terms of sexuality. When I say the religious roots run deep, it's because almost every assumption people make has been been shaped in some way by fundamentalist religion.

 

[Apparition B5]

Well it wouldn't be the first time we've seen gore in Trek. Remember "Conspiracy?" That could have been directed by John Carpenter. I mean, that kind of thing is uncommon in Trek, but not unheard of. Even the assassination scene in TUC is very gruesome and I remember being a little upset about it when I saw the movie as a kid.

Yeah, and that's the reason why I've seen every episode of The Next Generation at least three times each, with the sole exception of "Conspiracy," which I've only seen once. As for the assassination scene in The Undiscovered Country, it helped that the blood was pink.

I'll take it you haven't watched much Star Trek over the years? There is gore galore, and the catsuits never hid feminine features.

Oh, I've watched plenty of Star Trek over the past 36 years. Like said above, "Conspiracy" was bad. However, the gore that is considered acceptable on television over the past ten years or so has been far worse. That's my main fear with Discovery. What has become commonplace and acceptable in television over the past ten years has pretty much driven me from it. The television shows I do watch today are mostly from pre-2000.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

So... we should perpetuate the idea that beauty and sexuality are still demonized in the 23rd century so as not to detract from your preferred social messages? We negotiate some conservative philosophy so we're allowed some liberal philosophy?


There's a lot of other shows with spaceships, Gay characters, and violence, too.


The original Trek was always about an exciting and enlightened future for humanity, taking place in a colorful and exotic universe with no shortage of beauty and sexuality. If the 21st century audience is not going to take the show seriously because it is set in a less censorious future, then that tells you that it's important to emphasize that it takes place in a less censorious future.


Not if you know the history of Feminism and Western Civilization. The sex-negative memes that are being promoted in this thread were created by a bunch of sequestered monks with mommy issues in the Dark Ages, and they have shaped the negative views of sexuality in our society. Historically, Feminism, with rare exceptions, has not only promoted social and financial equality and freedom, but sexual equality and freedom, including free love, erotica, and prostitution. Two-thousand years of conservative religion has had a huge, ultimately immeasurable, impact on contemporary culture, and not just in terms of sexuality. When I say the religious roots run deep, it's because almost every assumption people make has been been shaped in some way by fundamentalist religion.

If you're just speaking here generally about Society and Contemporary Culture, then we're in agreement -- religious values are deeply embedded in many aspects our society and culture and can manipulate people's understanding of sex and sensuality. It's why there's a debate about breastfeeding in public, which is 100% natural and normal and in no way sexually explicit, and Free the Nipple, which seeks to normalize female bodies such that they are not viewed through the lens of male consumption and gratification. But where I would draw the line is if you're dismissing my arguments against sexist exploitation of female bodies in media as simply my having subconscious religious conservative values -- if that's the case, then you're getting into the realm of presumptuousness and internet psychoanalysis of a stranger. You just aren't aware of my background to make such a leap.

But again, none of my points are about sexuality or nudity as a concept. My point is solely about how it's presented and why. The Free Love movement and Feminism don't seek to prove that all sex is good sex or all nudity is good nudity. In every case of sexuality or sensuality, whether in real life or in media, you have to ask yourself essential questions: Is there consent? What is the power dynamic? Is there an equality of power, or does one individual wield control over another? Is an individual's body or sexuality being used in a manner that is not their intent or desire? Do all parties have the ability to stop what's happening, without pressure or consequence? And so on and so forth. Not asking these essential questions is what drives sexism and rape culture. A critical media consumer should pay attention to this and call it out.

EDIT: And by no means am I suggesting that DSC will necessarily have sexist portrayals of women, sex, nudity, etc. Nor am I suggesting they shouldn't have sex or nudity. In fact, I have complete confidence in the creators, and if they think that increased sexual content will serve their story in a positive way, I trust them to do that. I'm totally open to that and I'd be curious to see how they address it.

 

[Spot261]

The original Trek was always about an exciting and enlightened future for humanity, taking place in a colorful and exotic universe with no shortage of beauty and sexuality

True, but a lot of that beauty was there for GR's personal consumption. Hardly a positive legacy really

If the 21st century audience is not going to take the show seriously because it is set in a less censorious future, then that tells you that it's important to emphasize that it takes place in a less censorious future.

It's hardly censorship to pitch the show to it's target audience and their expectations. Judging by this thread the reception to the idea is lukewarm at best and trek's most culturally significant impact has almost always come as a result of things OTHER than the sex and nudity. (I'll grant Teri Farrells same sex kiss as an exception here, and hardly all that racy anyway).

In fact what exactly would we be challenging by upping the sex content? Where is this overbearing culture of censorship you seem to be referring to? We have sex and nudity to the point of saturation throughout the media already. Consistently the most searched words on the internet include sex and porn, content it is literally awash with. Flick through your TV channels at night and see how long you go before you see someone having sex. You're talking about challenging something that simply doesn't exist. If anything, trek will challenge more in society by providing that intellectual content WITHOUT resorting to nudity as a marketing gimmick.

We don't need to push for the right to see sex on TV any more than we need to campaign for women's right to vote. We've already got it. Pushing it now is liberalism in the most hackneyed, superficial, trivial and overdone sense. It's fighting a pointless fight for something petty and trivial we've already got without showing much concern for the fact that people might not even want it.The world has plenty of real problems our attention and a show like trek could be better focused on.

Just because we can do something does not mean it is always a good thing and trek has consistently been better without.

 

[Christopher]

It's hardly censorship to pitch the show to it's target audience and their expectations. Judging by this thread the reception to the idea is lukewarm at best...

Seriously? You cannot judge the overall reaction of the audience from a few posters on a BBS thread. Not only is that way, way too small a sample to be statistically useful, but it's a self-selecting sample and thus probably has biases that would make it non-representative of the general audience. For one thing, in a sample of voluntary commenters, people who disapprove of a thing will be more heavily represented than people who approve of it, because we're more inclined to speak up about the things we disagree with. So such things will almost always overrepresent the negative reaction to a thing.

In fact what exactly would we be challenging by upping the sex content?

We're going around in circles now. I've pointed out repeatedly: All we actually know is that the interviewer chose to focus his question on nudity and profanity as things they might be able to have more of now that there's less censorship. The head of CBS Digital agreed that such things could be included if they were justified by the story. Nobody has said that they absolutely will be the focus. It's just an example of what greater creative freedom makes possible. And as I've explained, there are other ways that such greater freedom could be used, such as Luke Cage's greater freedom to confront racial issues. Censorship doesn't just quash nudity or cuss words, it can quash the exploration of controversial or challenging ideas. This is not about skin. This is about having more freedom to do whatever a story needs.

 

[Spot261]

Censorship doesn't just quash nudity or cuss words, it can quash the exploration of controversial or challenging ideas.

But we aren't talking about that, we're talking about whether people want an increased amount of sex in trek. Given it's inordinate success without that sex it seems the lukewarm and cautious response here is far from being non representative. In fact it correlates quite neatly with the success and impact of various iterations of the show.

This also isn't a thread about censorship. It's about whether putting the sex and nudity in is actually warranted or a positive thing. My contention is that it isn't, trek works better without. Changing the creative team does not alter the fact they are working with an existing intellectual and fictional framework which has already proven itself as a cultural icon and commercial success on it's current terms, far MORE so than other shows which have pushed further.

It works through metaphor and gentle questioning of your assumptions, not sensationalism.

Trek challenges issues in society and in this instance it's pretty clear homophobia is a current target. Rightly so and long overdue.

Showing lesbian sex scenes and using them as a sales pitch (which this is) is hardly challenging homophobia, however, else the sheer volume of cheap exploitative lesbian porn we already have would eradicated that particular form of bigotry long ago. It hasn't done so for obvious reasons.

Pitching the show such that young children can watch and absorb a positive view of same sex couples, however, is far more likely to make a lasting difference. Provide them with a hero who just happens to be gay and you permanently provide them with a counter to the sorts of negative stereotypes they will be exposed to. Provide them with pointless scene grabbing sex scenes and they will either not be allowed to watch, or be presented with an affirmation of those stereotypes at an early age.

Again, (assuming you live in the west) you are referring to a society of censorship that simply does not exist. Europe is more open than America, sure, but in both instances we already have an entertainment industry which enjoys such an abundance of portrayals of sex that young actresses in particular are effectively discriminated against should they make a choice NOT to portray sex scenes or show their bodies.

I actually made a point of asking a friend in the profession just how taking such a position would affect an aspiring actress should they express it to an agent. Her response? "Good luck with that".

You cannot expect the same chance of success in acting without allowing yourself to be a sexual object. In what other profession would we allow that?

We are at the stage where we are actively pushing institutionalised exploitation and removing people's freedom to choose yet calling it liberalism because we can't get away from the incorrect association with ever increasing sex in the media as a form of self expression and a sexual freedom. It isn't a sexual freedom, it's a way of using peoples bodies to make money.

Sexual freedoms are about the ability to express YOURSELF without fear of persecution or prejudice, not the freedom to be a human marketing ploy for the makers of a TV show.

 

[Christopher]

But we aren't talking about that, we're talking about whether people want an increased amount of sex in trek.

No, you're talking about that because you read too much into the original article. Again, it was the interviewer who focused on "nudity and cursing" -- and, by the way, didn't actually mention sex, just nudity -- and the CBS Digital CEO who said such things could "theoretically" be included if they served the story. So this is not about them putting sex in Discovery. Nobody official has actually said anything about that happening, so it's pure speculation at this point. They've just said that being on CBS All Access opens the door to a theoretically greater range of possibilities than they would've had on a commercial network. And that's what I'm talking about -- what kinds of things a show can do with less censorship. And that is not a conversation that's exclusively about nudity or profanity, despite the preoccupations of an interviewer who was no doubt trying to provoke an audience reaction by bringing up nudity and profanity.

You're right that throwing in sex scenes for no other reason than to be prurient is not all that creatively interesting. And that's exactly why I'm not interested in fixating on that question in this conversation. Because there is a larger and more worthwhile conversation to be had about the ways that a show freed from the need to sell soap and cars every five minutes can go places in its storytelling that advertisers might not be comfortable letting it go otherwise. In some cases, yes, that may involve sexual themes -- not simply for the sake of prurience, but in a more thoughtful and challenging way, like Jessica Jones's exploration of the psychological consequences of sexual exploitation and victimization. But tthere are other themes that could be explored as well, like Luke Cage's racial issues and commentary on police violence. Controversial subject matters that a commercial network show might be discouraged from exploring too deeply by its sponsors but that a Netflix or other streaming show would be freer to explore. There might be ways in which telling such stories might entail a degree of nudity or profanity or onscreen sex, not as ends in themselves but as part of honestly presenting those larger stories and issues. So it's good to have that freedom if it's needed.

Granted, Star Trek: Discovery will reportedly carry some advertising despite being on a streaming service, so it might not have quite the same freedom as a Netflix or HBO show, which is part of why I don't think you have to worry so much about excessive sex. These things are matters of degree. I think it will be able to go places a network show would not, but still not go as far as something like Game of Thrones. But of course, we'll see when we see.

 

[fireproof78]

Not if you know the history of Feminism and Western Civilization. The sex-negative memes that are being promoted in this thread were created by a bunch of sequestered monks with mommy issues in the Dark Ages, and they have shaped the negative views of sexuality in our society. Historically, Feminism, with rare exceptions, has not only promoted social and financial equality and freedom, but sexual equality and freedom, including free love, erotica, and prostitution. Two-thousand years of conservative religion has had a huge, ultimately immeasurable, impact on contemporary culture, and not just in terms of sexuality. When I say the religious roots run deep, it's because almost every assumption people make has been been shaped in some way by fundamentalist religion.

Wow...
I grew up religious and do not have negative views on nudity or sexuality. May of the preconceived notions regarding religiousness and sexuality are not as accurate as a reading on the Internet would have one believe. So, it is not as cut and dry as many would have it depicted, any more than individual concerns with Discovery's use of nudity and swear words would be formed from a religiously conservative point of view. Any more than I could saw that all liberals are sexually permissive hippies.

While this is outside the scope of this discussion, I think that individual concerns about how the show will be portrayed are vary from person to person.

 

[RJDiogenes]

If you're just speaking here generally about Society and Contemporary Culture, then we're in agreement -- religious values are deeply embedded in many aspects our society and culture and can manipulate people's understanding of sex and sensuality. It's why there's a debate about breastfeeding in public, which is 100% natural and normal and in no way sexually explicit, and Free the Nipple, which seeks to normalize female bodies such that they are not viewed through the lens of male consumption and gratification. But where I would draw the line is if you're dismissing my arguments against sexist exploitation of female bodies in media as simply my having subconscious religious conservative values -- if that's the case, then you're getting into the realm of presumptuousness and internet psychoanalysis of a stranger. You just aren't aware of my background to make such a leap.

It's not my intention to make it personal at all. I appreciate a polite discussion. My point of contention is that the inclusion of beauty or sexuality in any art form is "exploitive" at all-- or sexist, for that matter, unless you mean the relative dearth of male beauty and sexuality. Any aspect of humanity is appropriate for art or entertainment. Take for example that scene in an early Trek episode where Uhura sings for Spock-- it exists solely because of Nichelle Nichols' beautiful voice and does not advance the story at all, thereby meeting the definition of "gratuitous" used here (in itself, the silliest reason ever for dismissing artistry). Was that exploitive?

But again, none of my points are about sexuality or nudity as a concept. My point is solely about how it's presented and why. The Free Love movement and Feminism don't seek to prove that all sex is good sex or all nudity is good nudity. In every case of sexuality or sensuality, whether in real life or in media, you have to ask yourself essential questions: Is there consent? What is the power dynamic? Is there an equality of power, or does one individual wield control over another? Is an individual's body or sexuality being used in a manner that is not their intent or desire? Do all parties have the ability to stop what's happening, without pressure or consequence?

Definitely good questions to ask in real life, but if the sexuality or nudity is in a TV show it's presumably met those criteria-- unless a crime has been committed, which is an entirely different discussion.

EDIT: And by no means am I suggesting that DSC will necessarily have sexist portrayals of women, sex, nudity, etc. Nor am I suggesting they shouldn't have sex or nudity. In fact, I have complete confidence in the creators, and if they think that increased sexual content will serve their story in a positive way, I trust them to do that. I'm totally open to that and I'd be curious to see how they address it.

Then we're pretty much on the same page. Although we may have a somewhat different definition of "serves the story."

True, but a lot of that beauty was there for GR's personal consumption. Hardly a positive legacy really

Everything was. He was the creator of the concept. What's the relevance?

It's hardly censorship to pitch the show to it's target audience and their expectations.

The purpose of art is to defy expectations. That's what Star Trek did. That's why it stirred controversy.

Judging by this thread the reception to the idea is lukewarm at best

Which is probably the best reason to do it.

In fact what exactly would we be challenging by upping the sex content? Where is this overbearing culture of censorship you seem to be referring to?

It's right here where the CBS is saying there will be less of it on the streaming service, and where the very thought has now generated nine pages of panic attacks, sloganeering, and misused buzzwords.

Just because we can do something does not mean it is always a good thing and trek has consistently been better without.

That's what some people are saying about the homosexual angle. There's such a thing as being too progressive!

Wow...
I grew up religious and do not have negative views on nudity or sexuality. May of the preconceived notions regarding religiousness and sexuality are not as accurate as a reading on the Internet would have one believe. So, it is not as cut and dry as many would have it depicted, any more than individual concerns with Discovery's use of nudity and swear words would be formed from a religiously conservative point of view. Any more than I could saw that all liberals are sexually permissive hippies.

I'm glad to hear that you do not have negative views on nudity or sexuality. This is true of many religious people-- in fact, a lot of those sexually permissive Hippies were quite religious. However, the point stands that the negative assumptions that permeate contemporary society regarding anything vaguely sexual are the result of some not-so-nice religion of the past. It is, as the saying goes, a matter of cosmic history.

 

[Spot261]

Everything was. He was the creator of the concept. What's the relevance?

That the beauty was there for him to personally exploit. On the casting couch.

The purpose of art is to defy expectations. That's what Star Trek did. That's why it stirred controversy.

Art has many purposes, not all are so confrontational. Censorship is an authority deeming you are not permitted to do something, not the creator of the piece deciding it's a bad idea or the audience preferring it without. The word is being misused here.

Which is probably the best reason to do it.

Because it's simply not appropriate to the franchise and doesn't work when it's tried? Which it has been on several occsasions.

We don't have this society of censorship and shame you seem to imagine, we have an over abundance of sexual portrayals in the media already. The issue is simply whether people feel that more nudity and sex is appropriate in trek. Many do not, despite being liberals.

It's right here where the CBS is saying there will be less of it on the streaming service, and where the very thought has now generated nine pages of panic attacks, sloganeering, and misused buzzwords.

Well no, people saying they don't want sex and nudity in trek is not the same as having a fundamentalist society or mentality. More is not necessarily better and the overwhelming majority seem to be saying they have no objection to sexual portrayals in general, but they are unsure about it them in trek.

I can't help but feel you and I have very different views on what the essence of liberalism is. At heart it is not about the media or how much sex we get to see, that's a very superficial and limited perspective on the concept. Pushing for more just to shock conservatives (another concept you and I see differently) isn't liberalism, its just sensationalism.

In many ways that actually runs counter to true liberalism,. It can and often does lead to exploitation and objectification, even in a show like trek, taking peoples freedoms and choices away by associating success with willingness to submit.

Liberalism is about allowing people to be treated with respect, about moving in society freely without prejudice or discrimination, about acknowledging that simply being human imbues people with an inherent value regardless of circumstances. These core values are being challenged in the real world in ways they haven't been for a long time.

We need to counter this with positive, thought provoking portrayals, portrayals which avoid the negative stereotypes associated with sexuality in the media, particularly the porn industry.

Think on this, the human mind is most open to new ideas when it is young, how can we present young viewers with those positive role models if we make the show so adult that parents have no choice but to prevent them watching, or if they are allowed but all they take away is the image of two women having sex rather than the message that such a woman can be defined by more than her biology?

 

[fireproof78]

I'm glad to hear that you do not have negative views on nudity or sexuality. This is true of many religious people-- in fact, a lot of those sexually permissive Hippies were quite religious. However, the point stands that the negative assumptions that permeate contemporary society regarding anything vaguely sexual are the result of some not-so-nice religion of the past. It is, as the saying goes, a matter of cosmic history.

It is not quite as cut and dry but fair enough.

 

[stardream]

Wow...
I grew up religious and do not have negative views on nudity or sexuality. May of the preconceived notions regarding religiousness and sexuality are not as accurate as a reading on the Internet would have one believe. So, it is not as cut and dry as many would have it depicted, any more than individual concerns with Discovery's use of nudity and swear words would be formed from a religiously conservative point of view. Any more than I could saw that all liberals are sexually permissive hippies.

While this is outside the scope of this discussion, I think that individual concerns about how the show will be portrayed are vary from person to person.

I did too and always have to qualify the reason I don't like it is because I just don't like it. I have no negative feelings about it no more than I have toward say, the mirror universe, which I also don't like. I felt this way when I was an agnostic. I just don't see where it adds to a story because most of the time it could be cut out and not affect the story at all. However, as I stated earlier, if it shows up I'll just fast forward through it and that will be that. No histrionics.

 

[BillJ]

My contention is that it isn't, trek works better without.

If it has never had it, how can you claim it works better without it?

 

[Spot261]

Bill we've already discussed several examples at length.

 

[The Overlord]

Star Trek should not become Game of Thrones in Space, however it should be more daring and willing to take risks then the days of Voyager and its endless pat writing.

 

[RJDiogenes]

That the beauty was there for him to personally exploit. On the casting couch.

Maybe, maybe not-- it's still irrelevant to the content of the show.

Art has many purposes, not all are so confrontational.

But that is Star Trek's legacy.

Censorship is an authority deeming you are not permitted to do something, not the creator of the piece deciding it's a bad idea or the audience preferring it without. The word is being misused here.

Self-censorship if you prefer then. It amounts to the same thing. The Hays Code and the Comics Code Authority are both examples of industries censoring themselves under threat of official censorship.

We don't have this society of censorship and shame you seem to imagine, we have an over abundance of sexual portrayals in the media already.

And yet here we are, discussing this "controversy." There may be sexuality in the media, but there is also constant backlash-- from both the Right and the Left, these days. And as recent events should have taught people, social gains are not necessarily guaranteed.

I can't help but feel you and I have very different views on what the essence of liberalism is. At heart it is not about the media or how much sex we get to see, that's a very superficial and limited perspective on the concept.

Liberalism encompasses all aspects of humanity, but this is what we're talking about right now.

Pushing for more just to shock conservatives (another concept you and I see differently) isn't liberalism, its just sensationalism.

Annoying conservatives isn't the point, it's just added value. The point is to cure society of conservative ideology.

In many ways that actually runs counter to true liberalism,. It can and often does lead to exploitation and objectification, even in a show like trek, taking peoples freedoms and choices away by associating success with willingness to submit.

I really have no idea what that last part is supposed to mean, but "exploitation" and "objectification" are just a couple of those buzzwords that conservatives have always used to justify the demonization of beauty and sexuality.

Liberalism is about allowing people to be treated with respect, about moving in society freely without prejudice or discrimination, about acknowledging that simply being human imbues people with an inherent value regardless of circumstances. These core values are being challenged in the real world in ways they haven't been for a long time.

Liberalism is about being open minded and freedom from orthodoxy. You're absolutely right that liberal values are under attack, and this is one example.

Think on this, the human mind is most open to new ideas when it is young, how can we present young viewers with those positive role models if we make the show so adult that parents have no choice but to prevent them watching, or if they are allowed but all they take away is the image of two women having sex rather than the message that such a woman can be defined by more than her biology?

Think of the children! We wouldn't want them to get the impression that beauty and sexuality are actually good things and a normal part of being human, or that the normal rules of civilization apply to them as much as anything else. It's much better to teach them that beauty and sexuality negates every other aspect of the individual and therefore must be suppressed. For one thing, Star Trek was never intended to be a children's show, and for another, the assertion that sexuality is mutually exclusive with everything else is exactly the kind of ancient religious meme that I'm talking about.

 

[Spot261]

So... we should perpetuate the idea that beauty and sexuality are still demonized in the 23rd century

They aren't now.

But that is Star Trek's legacy.

No, its legacy was challenging peoples assumptions via metaphor and allegory, not shock value just because you can

Self-censorship if you prefer then. It amounts to the same thing. The Hays Code and the Comics Code Authority are both examples of industries censoring themselves under threat of official censorship.

This is neither, there is no threat of censorship of any kind. You just keep throwing that word around as though it has some relevance.

but there is also constant backlash-- from both the Right and the Left, these days.

Which should lead you to question whether you really are representing the views of real world liberals here.

The point is to cure society of conservative ideology.

And putting yet another naked person on screen, regardless of whether it actually makes the show better, does that how? We have a media inundated with sex already and a right wing president elect who owns a beauty pageant.

I really have no idea what that last part is supposed to mean,

I'm not sure how you could possibly not get it. We don't have a culture of curtailed freedoms and overbearing censorship. We have a culture wherein people's sexuality is routinely used by others to make money.

That isn't a freedom, its exploitation masquerading as one, especially when the entertainment industry is so awash with it that performers, especially female ones, are disadvantaged if they say no.

Try being a young female in the acting industry, who tells her agent she wants to succeed but does not want to be naked or perform any form of sexual act, real or simulated.

She might manage, but her chances are reduced and an honest agent would tell her so.

That is exactly the opposite of true liberalism, you keep mistaking the right to sexual freedom (which is about SELF expression) with ever increasing sex in the media, which in many ways is exactly the opposite of freedom if it curtails performers freedom to choose. Tell me by all means those performers are exercising a right to self expression, as opposed to simply doing what they are told is expected of them.

We have the right to show nudity and sex already, that doesn't mean we have to do so at every opportunity.

Liberalism is about being open minded and freedom from orthodoxy. You're absolutely right that liberal values are under attack, and this is one example.

But you aren't being open minded, you are assuming that any suggestion that additional sex is not warranted is right wing conservative censorship. You aren't open to the idea that it might simply not be a good idea.

 

[Christopher]

This is neither, there is no threat of censorship of any kind.

Of course there is. Commercial network television does still have restrictions on content. Not only can you not use certain expletives, show bare breasts or genitalia, show sexual intercourse too clearly, or the like, but since there are advertisers paying to run commercials during a broadcast, there are certain areas of controversial subject matter that those advertisers might not be comfortable with or willing to support, e.g. stories that deal too overtly with religion or racial tensions or the like. And without advertisers' sponsorship, a show doesn't get funded and can't stay on the air. But a show on a paid-subscription broadcaster like HBO or Netflix doesn't have that same worry, since the funding comes from the subscribers themselves. So there is more censorship on a free broadcast network show than there is on a paid-premium-channel show. That's why shows on HBO or Showtime or Netflix are able to do things you could never get away with on ABC or FOX or The CW. So yes, obviously there is censorship on commercial television.