News Rapp: Honored To Play A Gay Man On Trek
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
I can take a stab. He's a gay actor. Openly gay characters on television are few and far between. Getting to play an openly gay 23rd century Starfleet officer in a progressive sci-fi franchise that he's loved and admired his whole life is an honor for him. He is getting to play somebody much like himself in a fictional setting.
What's the confusion? You don't have to be LGBT to understand that a gay actor his honored to play a breakthrough gay role in a legendary franchise they respect and admire.
What's the confusion? You don't have to be LGBT to understand that a gay actor his honored to play a breakthrough gay role in a legendary franchise they respect and admire.
I'm pretty sure Rapp isn't going to be geting any gay on you. Tell the missile silos to stand down. Take us back to RappCon 5.
Since he's not playing a sexual orientation, I would agree that that was absurd. It would be cringing at something that wasn't even happening.
Funny how if the character is heterosexual, then the part isn't accused of being reduced to the sexual orientation, whereas on the other hand if the character is anything but, it is.
Because gay is different. To the opponents it's not "normal." When a straight male lead plays a role in which he seduces and bones half the female characters in the script he's just being a man, albeit an aggressively masculine one that scores better than most men in real life would or even could. At worst he's a player. A stud. A sex fiend. He's still a man. He's not a straight man. He's a MAN.
But a gay actor playing a gay role that encompasses a same-sex relationship? They're not a regular man or a woman. They're a gay or lesbian or bisexual and somehow less of a person than a "normal" hetero who also pursues adult and consensual sexual passions, just with somebody of the opposite gender. In short: straight is "great." Gay is "meh."
But a gay actor playing a gay role that encompasses a same-sex relationship? They're not a regular man or a woman. They're a gay or lesbian or bisexual and somehow less of a person than a "normal" hetero who also pursues adult and consensual sexual passions, just with somebody of the opposite gender. In short: straight is "great." Gay is "meh."
1. Borg drones don't say 'I.'
2. A Borg does not need to be assimilated. If you need to be assimilated, you're not Borg.
Now hand over the fake Trekkie Card, and back away slowly before the TNG board members notice you. They bite, ya know.
Better not watch Shatners Captains doco then. They're all very proud of and honoured by their 'firsts.'
First lead, first 'trusted' successor, first black lead, first female lead, first to 'reinvent' an old lead....
Well, except Bakula. He was a bit bummed by how Archer turned out, but proud to have taken part.
Last edited:
Was Bakula the first doofus in the captain's chair
He Leaped at the chance. It was Al an honor to him to play the forerunner to Kirk.
I'll go now.
I'll go now.
Please stay.
He was human, man. Hence all the tit ogling, and vaguely concerning over-affection for his beagle.
He was human, man. Hence all the tit ogling, and vaguely concerning over-affection for his beagle.
(*Squee*)
It's all good. I'm going to limp back to the Voyager board with my own kind.. er Voayger fans, okay? I said to my husband tonight I got beaten up by a very well intentioned bunch of Star Trek defenders today. They were determined to demonize me as an ignorant homophobe when in fact I'm an equal opportunity phobe. He laughed.. swine.
I think you are being just a little bit silly to be honest.
To be honoured is to be given or shown a privilege that others would covet. Clearly being the first gay character in a 50 year old franchise which has become a cultural icon qualifies.
To be honourable is a state of being, conditional upon one's behaviour, to be honest, to be brave, noble. Obviously being (or acting) gay does not inherently correlate with any of these things, that barely needs stating.
Rapp clearly and explicitly both used and meant the first, whereas you are questioning some non existent use of the second and wondering why people are responding with confusion and the suspicion of homophobia.
Actually I'm inclined to query this statement that he will actually be playing the first gay character anyway. Sulu's blink and you miss it scene in Beyond was for me the icing on the cake, he had always been gay by my subjective interpretation (and I doubt I'm alone in that), now it has been confirmed.
Even before that we had Dax's first gay kiss on trek, although I'll happily grant the context makes in universe interpretations somewhat debatable. Nonetheless we saw a same sex romantic encounter involving a main cast member twenty years ago.
I'm sorry. Everyone else is spot on with their reactions. Mine are wrong and unwarranted it was absurd of me to have a perspective that cringed that someone felt so honored to play a sexual orientation.
Rapp is perfect. I bow to the majority and their hive mentality
No one is bullying you. You said something people disagreed with, and they provided their own counterarguments. You can't complain about wanting to express your opinion and then get all pissy when others do the same. The persecution complex is unbecoming. Since you've made your (frankly rather petty) point abundantly cleat multiple times and can't seem to handle any criticism about it, perhaps it's time to move on like you said you would. I don't mean you have to leave the forum, but it's probably best to drop this tangent.
Differing opinions presented without flaming or personal attacks are not bullying.
Maybe, maybe not, my silly comment wasn't about your views, it was about your perception you were being personally attacked. Sorry if it was taken otherwise but I'd hardly call not being in the majority being bullied.
Except Rapp.
This whole thing is beginning to sound....sorta "needy."
No Refuge, you are actually wrong in your interpretation of a man bubbling with excitement over his role in the new Star Trek as "needy". I think maybe you are aware you over reacted but don't want to admit it at this point.
I called a post stupid. Very specifically.
Admittedly I did mention a seeming need for validation, but that was in direct refutation of a claim. It's a bit hard to avoid meshing 'post' and 'poster', when someone repeatedly makes themselves the content.
Admittedly I did mention a seeming need for validation, but that was in direct refutation of a claim. It's a bit hard to avoid meshing 'post' and 'poster', when someone repeatedly makes themselves the content.
Last edited:
