Spoilers On Seven and sexuality

[Jayson1]

I wonder if her kid will play a bigger role next season. Maybe he is kidnapped by Narek who did kind of just disappear on the show. He will not harm him if they turn of over Soji or something like that.


Jason

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What's pathetic is people on message boards who make personal attacks to other members and who pretend to know anything at all about the people they attack, and make idiotic assumptions about them, when in reality, they know absolutely nothing. Why don't you apply your own rules, stay on topic and don't throw abuse at other members?

You've derailed countless other topics you've been involved in with your tedious one-note tirades about women, men as victims, and "shoehorning" gays and minorities into the narrative. Physician, heal thyself. Find another hobby that doesn't involve all of us having to listen to your nonsense bigoted arguments repeated ad nauseam, or get a blog or something.

You're not a victim, nor are you suffering abuse. If you're going to talk shit about entire groups of people and disparage their inclusion or prominence in TV shows, then you're going to get some pushback on that. Deal with it.

You can't even decide what it is, whether I'm self-loathing or making the whole thing up.

That's right, because I've seen examples of both in abundance in my travels on the internets.

For the record, it's neither, and far from it. And also for the record, when I say "I'm gay and..." it's to stop people automatically assuming I'm just some homophobic bigot who hates gay people.

That's precisely what I'm talking about when I say you think it gives you a shield of immunity. What you fail to understand is that being gay does not preclude one from being a homophobic bigot, or else it wouldn't be such a common story that those who go out of their way to persecute gay people frequently wind up being discovered to have their own same sex encounters.

It's as simple as that, I never used it as a shield, I just said it to provide context. I love Seven and I love Raffi. Culber is a walking billboard for gay people and Stamets is... fine... - my problem is with the sledgehammer approach of casting and character building that pulls me out of these episodes. If the showrunners spent less time tripping over themselves to cast 90% black/female/gay and more time crafting compelling stories, these two shows would be a lot more popular. Discovery especially.

Why is 90% straight white male the default for you? Why is it not shoehorning to vastly over-represent the straight white male portion of the populace when casting TV shows, and why do you not imagine that that affects the storytelling the same way?

There's nothing about Stamets' and Culbert's relationship that was functionally any different than a million hetero relationships that have featured on Trek and other series without complaints. Why does that one bother you so? What's shoehorned about it as opposed to Tom and B'Lanna's relationship, for instance?

 

[SolarisOne]

I wasn't sure about my sexuality until I was around 25. Things like that need time, especially if you're bi, believe me, it's confusing

In my case, it was "I have this strong reaction to females--surely I'm straight! ... But why am I also reacting to this guy over here? THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!"

I’m not sure how you being gay has anything to do with this. This isn’t a rpg, playing the “gay card” doesn’t boost your stats.

I was going to say that, but was afraid I might slip into "attacking the poster" territory. 'Cause I'm tempted enough as it is.

What percentage of gay people in token appearances and only on paper do you consider enough? Can you make it into a math formula so we can calculate the precise number of gay people to add?

Maybe people should make a formula to determine the percentage of cishet people to have in shows instead. Watch even more heads explode, Fist of the North Star-style.

Im entitled to suggest that I am the very thing I'm complaining about.

As a gay man myself, I find it embarrassing, and condescending.

You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. You're not bi. You're gay. THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING. Let us have some representation, too, damn it.

On the contrary, the truly sad thing is that self-loathing people lashing out at and resenting other members of the same marginalized group in order to prop themselves up is not at all a rare phenomenon. Such individuals also frequently but erroneously believe that publicly announcing themselves as a member of said group every time they criticize them provides some sort of shield for their terrible behavior.

It's also true that many people like to pretend to be part of a group for the same faulty reasoning and to stir up trouble. Either way, it doesn't give the person making the bigoted or irrational remarks any greater credibility or sympathy if they're from the same group they're participating in marginalizing, it just makes the situation more pathetic.

A bit presumptuous. I have no interest in Seven of Nine.

I was thinking the same thing.

What is shoehorning? A foot fetish thing?

 

[The Old Mixer]

Could you sound anymore obnoxious?

Stop getting personal.

On the contrary, the truly sad thing is that self-loathing people lashing out at and resenting other members of the same marginalized group in order to prop themselves up is not at all a rare phenomenon. Such individuals also frequently but erroneously believe that publicly announcing themselves as a member of said group every time they criticize them provides some sort of shield for their terrible behavior.

It's also true that many people like to pretend to be part of a group for the same faulty reasoning and to stir up trouble. Either way, it doesn't give the person making the bigoted or irrational remarks any greater credibility or sympathy if they're from the same group they're participating in marginalizing, it just makes the situation more pathetic.

What's pathetic is people on message boards who make personal attacks to other members and who pretend to know anything at all about the people they attack, and make idiotic assumptions about them, when in reality, they know absolutely nothing. Why don't you apply your own rules, stay on topic and don't throw abuse at other members?

You can't even decide what it is, whether I'm self-loathing or making the whole thing up. For the record, it's neither, and far from it. And also for the record, when I say "I'm gay and..." it's to stop people automatically assuming I'm just some homophobic bigot who hates gay people. It's as simple as that, I never used it as a shield, I just said it to provide context. I love Seven and I love Raffi. Culber is a walking billboard for gay people and Stamets is... fine... - my problem is with the sledgehammer approach of casting and character building that pulls me out of these episodes. If the showrunners spent less time tripping over themselves to cast 90% black/female/gay and more time crafting compelling stories, these two shows would be a lot more popular. Discovery especially.

You've derailed countless other topics you've been involved in with your tedious one-note tirades about women, men as victims, and "shoehorning" gays and minorities into the narrative. Physician, heal thyself. Find another hobby that doesn't involve all of us having to listen to your nonsense bigoted arguments repeated ad nauseam, or get a blog or something.

You're not a victim, nor are you suffering abuse. If you're going to talk shit about entire groups of people and disparage their inclusion or prominence in TV shows, then you're going to get some pushback on that. Deal with it.

That's right, because I've seen examples of both in abundance in my travels on the internets.


That's precisely what I'm talking about when I say you think it gives you a shield of immunity. What you fail to understand is that being gay does not preclude one from being a homophobic bigot, or else it wouldn't be such a common story that those who go out of their way to persecute gay people frequently wind up being discovered to have their own same sex encounters.


Why is 90% straight white male the default for you? Why is it not shoehorning to vastly over-represent the straight white male portion of the populace when casting TV shows, and why do you not imagine that that affects the storytelling the same way?

There's nothing about Stamets' and Culbert's relationship that was functionally any different than a million hetero relationships that have featured on Trek and other series without complaints. Why does that one bother you so? What's shoehorned about it as opposed to Tom and B'Lanna's relationship, for instance?

This needs to be steered into being about the topic, not about @Kpnuts.

 

[Awesome Possum]

TV Guide knew.

If they had gone with Janeway instead of Seven the combined strong lesbian energy would form a fusion reaction that could've powered the planet for centuries.

 

[gblews]

5 gay characters in the space of two crews. With a "non binary" on the way in season 3 of Discovery.

The Discovery crew compliment is 136. That two of the crew are gay doesn’t seem unusual. In fact, I’ll bet that’s a low number on average. Reno wasn’t part of DSC original crew, but even if she was, 3 gay people out of 136 still seems low. I worked in an office with less than 100 people and there were at least 3 gay people among the employees, as far as I know.

As for the La Sirena crew, there was only one bi crew member, (Raffi). Seven wasn’t part of the crew JL put together so , like Reno, I think she should not count as part of the “crew.”

Now, if you want to talk about out of universe, obviously the producers made a conscious decision to include more openly gay characters as well as openly gay actors. As has been pointed out, the reason for this decision is certainly a desire to have the shows reflect the society in which we live.

But I’ll bet that viewership was also a factor. The more diverse the cast, more people who will watch, all other things being equal.

But even if the decision was made purely because of “politics,” so damn what? For decades and decades the “political” decision was to NOT include openly gay characters and actors. If you didn’t have a problem with politics in casting before, then why would you have a problem with it now?

 

[AlanC9]

It still feels weird. They like how they look in a picture but then they don't I think even share a single scene of note in any of the episodes but they are holding hands and maybe in love in the final scene? It almost feels like they are kind of interested in the idea but they aren't fully sold on it and they wanted to toss out a moment to sort of explore what the fans reaction is to see if they should do it or not. I don't think I have ever seen a show do that before. Seek fan approval before going forward on something. Usually shows just do something and hope the fans like it and if they don't they either continue on defiantly anyways or change course.

I'm not certain it's a sound procedure to assume that they really were looking for fan approval there, even if it looks that way to you.

Note that the the final scene is supposed to take place a fair amount of time later than the rest of the episode; plenty of time for a relationship to get going. Unfortunately, the cut scenes make this timing not very apparent to the audience

 

[AlanC9]

The Discovery crew compliment is 136. That two of the crew are gay doesn’t seem unusual. In fact, I’ll bet that’s a low number on average. Reno wasn’t part of DSC original crew, but even if she was, 3 gay people out of 136 still seems low. I worked in an office with less than 100 people and there were at least 3 gay people among the employees, as far as I know.

Silly nitpick time: I think we see a couple of women dancing together in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad." So, maybe that's 5 out of 136?

 

[fireproof78]

But I’ll bet that viewership was also a factor. The more diverse the cast, more people who will watch, all other things being equal.

Expanding the audience is always a positive thing. I was recently enjoying a production interview of a video game talking about such a need.

But even if the decision was made purely because of “politics,” so damn what? For decades and decades the “political” decision was to NOT include openly gay characters and actors. If you didn’t have a problem with politics in casting before, then why would you have a problem with it now?

Because....

 

[cooleddie74]

Silly nitpick time: I think we see a couple of women dancing together in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad." So, maybe that's 5 out of 136?

Wow. 1 out of every 27 members of a crew are gay. Star Trek has clearly become nothing but SJW brainwashing.

Star Trek used to be ABOUT something.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Wow. 1 out of every 27 members of a crew are gay. Star Trek has clearly become nothing but SJW brainwashing.

Star Trek used to be ABOUT something.

Starfleet is almost literally a group of social justice warriors. Just saying.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even in 1966 they were.

I guess some people didn't get the memo.

Or the nearly 800 others that followed.

 

[Jayson1]

The Discovery crew compliment is 136. That two of the crew are gay doesn’t seem unusual. In fact, I’ll bet that’s a low number on average. Reno wasn’t part of DSC original crew, but even if she was, 3 gay people out of 136 still seems low. I worked in an office with less than 100 people and there were at least 3 gay people among the employees, as far as I know.

As for the La Sirena crew, there was only one bi crew member, (Raffi). Seven wasn’t part of the crew JL put together so , like Reno, I think she should not count as part of the “crew.”

Now, if you want to talk about out of universe, obviously the producers made a conscious decision to include more openly gay characters as well as openly gay actors. As has been pointed out, the reason for this decision is certainly a desire to have the shows reflect the society in which we live.

But I’ll bet that viewership was also a factor. The more diverse the cast, more people who will watch, all other things being equal.

But even if the decision was made purely because of “politics,” so damn what? For decades and decades the “political” decision was to NOT include openly gay characters and actors. If you didn’t have a problem with politics in casting before, then why would you have a problem with it now?

Actually it wasn't really political reasons you had so few gay characters in the past because of course many writers back then would have loved to have more diversity. It was more about profit. The networks feared anything being to controversial would effects ratings and that means loosing money. It wasn't until shows and movies started showing you can make profit and have more diversity that things started to change.

Jason

 

[Guy Gardener]

Actually it wasn't really political reasons you had so few gay characters in the past because of course many writers back then would have loved to have more diversity. It was more about profit. The networks feared anything being to controversial would effects ratings and that means loosing money. It wasn't until shows and movies started showing you can make profit and have more diversity that things started to change.

Jason

Onward, a cartoon movie about magic elves was banned in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, last week, because there's a cartoon lesbian in it.

Gay wasn't fully legal in America until 2003.

 

[Jayson1]

Onward, a cartoon movie about magic elves was banned in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, last week, because there's a cartoon lesbian in it.

Gay wasn't fully legal in America until 2003.

I imagine it would have been a issue in China as well if we didn't have the current crisis. No doubt Disney would have obeyed their demands and have the character edited out for the Chinese release.

Jason

 

[F. King Daniel]

Guys, I read the script and there aren't any gays in Axanar so I think we should all donate money to Alec. Give the middle-aged, white, cis men a chance!

 

[Guy Gardener]

I imagine it would have been a issue in China as well if we didn't have the current crisis. No doubt Disney would have obeyed their demands and have the character edited out for the Chinese release.

Jason

The point I was trying to make its that it wasn't that long ago (No more than 25 years ago) that mainstream America reacted to LGBT media identically to as the Middle East does now.

 

[Jayson1]

The point I was trying to make its that it wasn't that long ago (No more than 25 years ago) that mainstream America reacted to LGBT media identically to as the Middle East does now.

That's true though we did have it a little better. You had Ellen come out in the 90's and you saw improved representation starting in the 90's. I mean I am not even sure their is even any liberal pushback in some of those countries right now. It started off with people sort of being comfortable with gay characters as comic relief and now they can be serious leads.

Jason

 

[Guy Gardener]

Ellen got shitcanned.

 

[Hythlodeus]

In my case, it was "I have this strong reaction to females--surely I'm straight! ... But why am I also reacting to this guy over here? THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!"

This. So much this.

Also: "I'm young, what better time to experiment than now. What do you mean, I'm pushing 30? I don't want to stop experimen...oOh!"