Should Kirk be bisexual?

[Alpha Romeo]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

NO. Go watch Will and Grace if you want that in your TV shows.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

As much as I would love to see Chris Pine get into bed with another man, I just don't think it would make sense to take that approach. Roddenberry's Kirk was, as already mentioned, was the ultimate womanizer and everything we saw in this movie certainly implied that this was not one of the things that Abrams changed. He was depicted hitting on women quite regularly - were he bisexual, I imagine he would've flirted with a man at some point as well. You could argue that we just didn't get to see it, but alas I don't think it fits with the characterization.

There's no reason Abrams couldn't have gone that route, as I think the OP is right in saying it would be a nice twist on the character, but I think it's a case of too late.

Why do you need to see Kirk be gay?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Why do you need to see Kirk be gay?

Just the fact that it might piss off Shatner does make it a bit fun.

 

[Lightinspire]

As much as I would love to see Chris Pine get into bed with another man, I just don't think it would make sense to take that approach. Roddenberry's Kirk was, as already mentioned, was the ultimate womanizer and everything we saw in this movie certainly implied that this was not one of the things that Abrams changed. He was depicted hitting on women quite regularly - were he bisexual, I imagine he would've flirted with a man at some point as well. You could argue that we just didn't get to see it, but alas I don't think it fits with the characterization.

There's no reason Abrams couldn't have gone that route, as I think the OP is right in saying it would be a nice twist on the character, but I think it's a case of too late.

Why do you need to see Kirk be gay?[/QUOTE

Maybe because they are gay and they can't stand a real man to be a regular man? Who knows. James Cawley and his group already touched on the gay subject and have 2 men kissing. If they want to see gay in star trek they should go watch that episode. Mainline Star Trek doesn't need to go that route. That subject has been beaten to death..let's get on with some good stories and action, plots, etc..not the lifestyle thing again. Paramount knows if they go that route they would lose a HUGE amount of $$ thru their fan base loss.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Why would you want to turn Kirk into a Captain Jack rip-off?

 

[Civil Shadow]

Wow, how delightfully heteroassumptive of most of you.

Unless and until we see Kirk explicitly turn down another man's advances with the explanation, "I don't go that way," we can't state his heterosexuality as fact.

He has sex with non-humans people (or, at least, tries). Non-humans with undefined genital constructs. IMO, a little wang isn't going to scare him away.

 

[Tikkun]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

Well, I hope Kirk doesn't become bisexual, because if that happens I'm instantly not a fan of this Trek.

I understand tolerance, but please understand not all of us approve of bi or homo sexual lifestyles. And we have the right to our own views, thank you.

As do we

 

[Tikkun]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

Well, I hope Kirk doesn't become bisexual, because if that happens I'm instantly not a fan of this Trek.

I understand tolerance, but please understand not all of us approve of bi or homo sexual lifestyles. And we have the right to our own views, thank you.

Why does anyone need to approve/disapprove of someone else's sexuality? In my view, controlling or disapproving of two consenting adults attraction for each other is really sad. How does it affect others when two people of the same gender get together?

On to the original topic. Kirk is straight.

A friend once theorized that men are homophobic because they're afraid that, if they were on the receiving end of a bj, and looked down and saw it was a male, they would still enjoy it. That is about where i would put Kirk on the spectrum - omnisexual and willing to experiment. Emotionally, his primary bonds are with other men. Not a good marriage candidate.

 

[Tikkun]

Wow, how delightfully heteroassumptive of most of you.

Unless and until we see Kirk explicitly turn down another man's advances with the explanation, "I don't go that way," we can't state his heterosexuality as fact.

He has sex with non-humans people (or, at least, tries). Non-humans with undefined genital constructs. IMO, a little wang isn't going to scare him away.

 

[What's his face]

Captain Robau was gay. With George Kirk (the family was just a front)

 

[VOODOOXI]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

I have no problem with introdcuing gay or bisexual characters, but it would come across as a stunt if they did it with Kirk.

Besides, from a business point of view there is no way in hell Paramount is going to allow Star Trek to be such as social flashpoint when Abrams finally delivered them a cross over hit.

 

[What's his face]

Maybe they ought to make a secondary character (Admiral Pike, for example) gay. Of course what a lot of shows do with gay characters is make that their primary characteristic. A character becomes "that gay guy". That's a poor way of handling the issue, imo.

They should handle it like they did with Tom on LOST. Just a passing comment about hooking up with another guy or something. Maybe a 30 second scene with a partner saying "I love you" before going off on a dangerous mission. Nothing too fancy.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I wonder, if it were revealed at some point that Orion "women" had male genitalia and the "men" had vaginas... would that make Kirk technically bi? He does like his Orions

 

[Kanenas]

absolutly not.

The goal is to give the franchise a new lease on life.

James T. Kirk should remain as is.

(as an aside, sulu should remain straight too.)

The trek franchase is entirely owned by Paramount. The suits would not be so absurd to poison a main stream franchise with such a character risk. This has to sell not only in the United States and Canada, it has to sell in the rest of the world.

 

[StarTrek1701]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

Why? Why does any character need to be gay? That's stupid and does nothing to help develop the universe of Star Trek. One's sexual preference doesn't need to be thrust upon the world.
Besides, Kirk is a ladies man, not some Kansas City ******.

The same reason that Roddenberry fought the studio to have a black woman and an asian as officers, a diverse crew that included women who actually had jobs in all areas - as well as a demonic looking alien who commented on human foibles.

I'd actually like to see Sulu openly gay as well - think of what that could do for gay tweens and teens. Reminds me of the story Whoopi told about running to get her family shouthing "C'mere! There's a black lady on tv and she ain't no maid!"

That's a different issue than this one.

 

[FailedLurker]

I don't think Kirk is the right character to be gay, especially as presented in the movie, where he ogles every woman and no men.

I actually said to the person I was seeing the movie with on Thursday that they should make the new Sulu gay - it would be good to finally have a gay character on Trek, it would be great for it to me one of the main cast, and I thought it would be a nice hat-tip to George Takei for it to be Sulu.

The person I was with asked, "Just because the actor is gay then the character has to be gay?" and I replied, "Why, is John Cho gay?"

 

[J47]

As much as I would love to see Chris Pine get into bed with another man, I just don't think it would make sense to take that approach. Roddenberry's Kirk was, as already mentioned, was the ultimate womanizer and everything we saw in this movie certainly implied that this was not one of the things that Abrams changed. He was depicted hitting on women quite regularly - were he bisexual, I imagine he would've flirted with a man at some point as well. You could argue that we just didn't get to see it, but alas I don't think it fits with the characterization.

There's no reason Abrams couldn't have gone that route, as I think the OP is right in saying it would be a nice twist on the character, but I think it's a case of too late.

Why do you need to see Kirk be gay?

Maybe because they are gay and they can't stand a real man to be a regular man? Who knows. James Cawley and his group already touched on the gay subject and have 2 men kissing. If they want to see gay in star trek they should go watch that episode. Mainline Star Trek doesn't need to go that route. That subject has been beaten to death..let's get on with some good stories and action, plots, etc..not the lifestyle thing again. Paramount knows if they go that route they would lose a HUGE amount of $$ thru their fan base loss.

You have got to be kidding me. Note that I said Chris Pine at the beginning, not Kirk. I think Chris is hot. I think it'd be damn hot to see him with another guy. After saying that I moved on to address the original post, where I laid out why it wouldn't make sense to make Kirk bisexual at this point. I don't "need" Kirk to be gay, and although I do think turning the character into something more akin to Captain Jack's pansexuality would be a nice way of bringing Star Trek into the 21st Century, I'm more than okay with them leaving the fictional character's sexuality as is.

I also happen to believe that making a major character in the film gay would probably bring enough gay people into theaters to more than make up for the homophobes who check out. I don't think it is something that TPTB should do, merely that it would be nice if they did, and rest assured I would sooner see a good story with action, plots, etc, than a shit story with a gay character.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

James Kirk has broken social taboos before but there are some places that even Star Trek has not yet been bold enough to go.
Star Trek was revolutionary in it's day and should be so again.
Capt. Kirk's libido should know no bounds, regardless of race, gender or species!

So what do you think? Could Star Trek possibly follow in the footsteps of Doctor Who and Torchwood in fighting prejudice and challenging perceptions or is this new Star Trek not as modern as we're told?

This isn't TNG. This is Star Trek.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

A great way to kill the momentum of the franchise would be to do something extremely controversial and out of character like that. If you want a gay Captain Kirk, go watch Torchwood.

Took me about .003 milliseconds of watching Torchwood before I had to switch to the NFL Network. Same thing would tank the Trek franchise.

 

[T'Paul]

A great way to kill the momentum of the franchise would be to do something extremely controversial and out of character like that. If you want a gay Captain Kirk, go watch Torchwood.

Took me about .003 milliseconds of watching Torchwood before I had to switch to the NFL Network. Same thing would tank the Trek franchise.

You might enjoy Torchwood more if you were more open minded.