What do you think about people "Shipping" Kirk and Spock?

[Nerys Myk]

I've never taken the line in "The Naked Time" to mean literally that a First Officer is permitted to have affairs with a yeoman, while a Captain can't. More like Kirk feels so pressured to be the perfect Captain at all times that he won't permit himself to show any weakness or indulge in distractions.

Yes, t's about a line Kirk feels he cannot cross because of his position as Captain. No disagreement there.

As I said, it was no problem for Robert April to marry his CMO. And Kirk does in fact "notice" several subordinates. T

Reviewing the transcript, there is nothing to indicate that Sarah was April's CMO or even served on the Enterprise. She's mentioned as having invented several of the instruments in sickbay and having served on the first ship equipped with warp drive. Episodes before and after make it unlikely to be the Enterprise.
April and Sarah are free to date if she's not under his command.

TOS is hardly consistent with its own rules anyway (like the Prime Directive).

The Prime Directive is an in universe order and a plot device often designed to be broken for the sake of drama.

The scripts and outlines for "Mirror Mirror" show that his interest in Marlena wasn't strictly professional.

In formation from early scripts and outlines are irrelevant. It don't mean a thing if it ain't on the screen.

Many of his ex-girlfriends are Starfleet personnel with lower ranks than him.

Not the issue. Off the top of my head I can only think of two exes who were definitely Starfleet: Janice Lester and and Areel Shaw. Neither were shown to be under his command.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Let's also keep in mind that the Star Trek staff didn't make Kirk and Spock so tight because they were sitting around and trying to push some kind of same sex love agenda. That would have been totally unacceptable in 1966 - 69 and wasn't even a thing on Star Trek until recently (long overdue - Roddenberry and then Berman shoulda had the stones to have gay crewmembers on TNG, but I digress). Kirk was straight as a ruler.

No, the reason was Spock's popularity and how to keep him from totally overshadowing Kirk and further causing problems with Shatner/Nimoy on stage. It was Isaac Asimov, I believe, who suggested Kirk start showing a real friendship with Spock with the goal of the audience thinking of them as a team rather than it being The Spock Show. Roddenberry responded to that letter agreeing and even stating that had already started making moves in that direction.

Did it work? Not as much as they intended, since I Grok Spock was a thing and Kirk slogans weren't on bumper stickers. But it still solidified the team and then it became the trio.

And that, friends, is what I believe is another reason the supporting cast got shunted aside more: to put more focus on that relationship. Until the third season's budget cuts made it necessary to have more bottle shows and naturally would result in the bridge crew getting more screen time. Again, I digress.

But that's it. Kirk and Spock were "brothers." Like West and Gordon, Nelson and Crane, and Austin and Goldman.

 

[Airin]

Neither were shown to be under his command.

Neither were shown to not be under his command, either. And as with the Prime Directive, rules can and will be broken. Already "The Cage" established the sexual tension between Pike and Number One (at least on her part). TNG did the same between Picard and Beverly in "The Naked Now". Just to show how easy it is to canonize a mutual attraction, without necessarily breaking the rules. Sure, they wouldn't follow up with those relationships, but that happens with basically all relationships in TOS, anyway.

And that, friends, is what I believe is another reason the supporting cast got shunted aside more: to put more focus on that relationship.

I don't think the supporting cast was ever intended to be anything more than what we saw. If anything, Scotty and Chekov saw their parts increased over time. As for Kirk and Spock, it was always really the Kirk show (with Spock and McCoy close behind), no matter what the fandom or the magazines wanted. They get more screentime together in season one, but by season two, Spock tends to be put with McCoy, while Kirk kind of goes away on his own. Season three is about the three of them, or just Kirk. So I'd say the closeness between Kirk and Spock, in particular, decreased, regardless of Asimov's advice. By season three, Nimoy was complaining about his role being cut down.

 

[Farscape One]

Prime universe yes and nothing in 60 years of Trek counters that...however with their being infinite universes (of which we have barely touched the surface on screen) there will inevitably be one where they are - and that's fine too.

All bases covered, doesn't contradict anything shown on screen, acknowledges that given the right circumstances in said parallel universe a friendship that close could morph into something else

Your honour - I rest my case

P.S only directing to your message as it was the first I read, not indicating any disagreement with you or calling you out so hope it doesn't come across that way

No problem. I didn't take it as anything personal or anything.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Neither were shown to not be under his command, either.

Lester and Kirk were at the Academy together.. Shaw is a JAG officer. Unlikely to be under his command.

. Already "The Cage" established the sexual tension between Pike and Number One (at least on her part). TNG did the same between Picard and Beverly in "The Naked Now". Just to show how easy it is to canonize a mutual attraction, without necessarily breaking the rules. Sure, they wouldn't follow up with those relationships, but that happens with basically all relationships in TOS, anyway.

No one is saying there can't be attraction, mutual or unrequited. Acting on it is where the "trouble" lies.

 

[Weyoun 251]

No problem. I didn't take it as anything personal or anything.

Good stuff - just conscious that text can come across blunter and like one is challenging the quoted person so just wanted to cover the bases

 

[Poltargyst]

No. In a 60's show they certainly don't. Censorship is a thing. As well as bias and prejudices from showrunners (aka "why you're much more likely to see a man/woman couple, or even a woman/woman couple, canonized, while potential man/man couples get swept under the rug").

Be that as it may, if for whatever reason it doesn't make it to screen then there's nothing there to consider.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, t's about a line Kirk feels he cannot cross because of his position as Captain. No disagreement there.

Attraction does not mean action. Kirk could be attracted; he notes as such about Rand. It doesn't mean he would take action.

Military members can get married. I know a couple who served in the same ship and ended up together prior to leaving the service. From a military standpoint they are looking at chains of command, good order and discipline within the ranks and officers and enlisted as separate due to power differential.

Avoiding disrupting to the chain of command within a unit is the primary goal.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I've never taken the line in "The Naked Time" to mean literally that a First Officer is permitted to have affairs with a yeoman, while a Captain can't. More like Kirk feels so pressured to be the perfect Captain at all times that he won't permit himself to show any weakness or indulge in distractions.

Well, that's how you interpret it. Other folks interpret it as Captain Kirk literally not being allowed to have romantic relations with his Yeoman.

The scripts and outlines for "Mirror Mirror" show that his interest in Marlena wasn't strictly professional.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't make it to the finished episode. And in the finished episode Kirk doesn't do anything inappropriate with Prime Marlena.

Many of his ex-girlfriends are Starfleet personnel with lower ranks than him.

Which happened years before he became a Captain, with women who weren't serving on the Enterprise.

Kirk also doesn't diddle around with subordinates. Mirror Kirk does, but not Prime Kirk.

Exactly. It's an accepted and established thing in the Mirror Universe, but so is assassination of superior officers, so we shouldn't look to the MU as an indicator of anything about the Prime Universe.

Neither were shown to be under his command.

Neither were shown to not be under his command, either. And as with the Prime Directive, rules can and will be broken.

Oh FFS. You're arguing just to argue now.

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

Spirk's fun, but I think the vibe is more platonic life partners than anything else. They would die for one another and no one else in their lives would ever be as close as they are to one another, but it's not sexual/romantic relationship in the traditional sense.

 

[fireproof78]

"Never heard of him. That's not exactly true. We were like brothers ..."

 

[Airin]

Well, that's how you interpret it. Other folks interpret it as Captain Kirk literally not being allowed to have romantic relations with his Yeoman.

Oh, but Spock could then, as he's said to be allowed to notice her? The First Officer who's in charge of personnel?? Wow those are some really weird ethics and double standards...

Oh FFS. You're arguing just to argue now.

It's not me who keeps arguing despite direct on-screen evidence. "Balance of Terror" shows a couple, they work together, she is his subordinate. Period.

This whole subject was brought up because someone was using the "Captains can't have affairs with subordinates" as an explanation why Kirk and Spock can't have a romantic link. Which is a bullshit excuse, since: 1) There were large periods between the movies when they weren't serving together. 2) Showing attraction would be enough; no need to act upon it. 3) The rule that Captains are excluded from relationships is tenous at best in TOS, and based on a single line from Kirk when he's depressed (he also exaggerates about how the ship is his only mistress or something like that).
All this just to give an apparent objective justification to something that, in the end, boils down to a personal dislike of the couple. I've seen FAR less resistance in these forums to the (also non-canon) idea that Spock married Saavik, despite the father figure/mentor relationship, and the multiple levels of cringe involved. Wonder why...

 

[Airin]

Be that as it may, if for whatever reason it doesn't make it to screen then there's nothing there to consider.

I thought that Star Trek fans loved to speculate about a multitude of things that could be, even if they haven't appeared on-screen yet? Or is this where we draw a line?
Look, I don't think that modern Trek would ever canonize k/s, because modern Trek is playing way too safe and has no balls. And as a McCoy fan, I'd really be unhappy if they canonized it; unhappy and even angry. But it would be interesting just to see the fandom's reaction. The same fandom that accepted with no problem that a godamn war changed places in the chronology. And yet I'm sure many would come up with the wildest theories about why "that kiss between Kirk and Spock never actually happened".
You know that it doesn't matter in the end. Whether it's just subtext, whether it's a mere possibility (which Roddenberry conceded in some interviews), whether it's on-screen evidence, some people will just never accept something like that.

 

[at Quark's]

The options in the poll aren't answers to the question of what I think about people 'shipping' Kirk and Spock.

My answer to that question would be 'Not much. Kirk/Spock shipping isn't my cup of tea, but if people want to, let them.'

As for the poll options, I'd choose 'just best friends'.

 

[Oddish]

As for the poll options, I'd choose 'just best friends'.

As would I. The closeness is there. The attraction is not.

 

[korblborp]

I think the vibe is more platonic life partners than anything else. They would die for one another and no one else in their lives would ever be as close as they are to one another

sudden image of Kirk and Spock as Jay and Silent Bob

i don't think thay are anything but best friends, forged in fire, but as with most "shipping", especially "non canon" ones, i don't really care unless someone's being an a-hole about it

 

[Qonundrum]

Best friends with an emotional bond gets my vote, which is not the same thing as both having physical desire or "romantic entanglements", as one's sex drive is not directly or always related to platonic friendships.

True, true, the 1970s really dived into this and the 70s were absolutely loaded with Spock/Kirk shippin' for those who loved reading more about it. Some even drew pictures of various bits, which are easy to look up but I can't include here because those were truly where no one without drugs has gone before. But that's an expanded universe that doesn't fetter the main show.

But for the wider picture, the 1970s were so sexed up that streaking and skinny dipping made for even common TV fodder and I don't mean just the 1974 Oscars incident where the audience at the event cheered jubilantly after the infamous moment, with David Niven remaining composure somehow. But I digress, here's a clip from a saccharine sitcom of the time, which isn't an outtake (but is generally not in syndicated rerun cuts):

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Oh wait, wrong episode, silly video content creators... (Isn't Kryten your favorite TV character ever?)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

(Nor was it really lost, it was aired but removed from syndicated reruns where they always chop out 60~180 seconds of episode footage for commercials to offset rerun costs.)

Bobby and Cindy wanting to go skinny -- dipping ... [Archive] - Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums

[Archive] Bobby and Cindy wanting to go skinny -- dipping ... The Brady Bunch

www.sitcomsonline.com

The Decade of Decadence: A Quick Look at The Sexual Revolution - Flashbak

If you're going to be an honest "historian" of the 1970s, you've got to address the defining characteristic of the decade: S-E-X. America's largest generation by far, the Boomers, had all reached their sexual prime - and, as it happens, the counter-culture movement had done away with the more...

flashbak.com

Adverts for products like "The Love Rug" (just finding and looking at that ad alone might require antibiotics...) - again, it's definitely a 70s ad...
etc

But a LOT of shows in the 70s, even game shows, from early to late, sometimes snuck in the Oscars, Myra Breckenridge, etc, into questions, and even the otherwise family-friendly shows of the day with innocent questions still had contestants responding "making love" before the emcee reminded them it was a family show, which didn't stop more contestants from saying the same answer for it in later episodes because it was common enough.

Lastly:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There, a nice healthy dose of Kryten, so I feel mostly better again. Even despite 3:47 that does its own take, too.