Is Star Trek homophobic?

[DevilEyes]

Homophobic - no. I think the word you're looking for is "cowardly".

Though I see others prefer the term "timid".

Trek isn't, America is. If you want to be successful on TV or in the Movies here, you have to make believe that gays don't exist. Unless you're christian, then you just want to wipe them out. You know, like Jesus would do.

How d'you explain the success of 6 Feet Under? Or Will and Grace?

Its the typical gay portrayal - the whole point of the character is the fact that they are gay. Their "gayness" is the reason for the character's existence. You would never see a cop show, for example, where the lead, when he leaves to go to work, kisses his husband and kids goodbye. He would be a cop that happened to be gay, not a gay guy that happened to be a cop. Homosexuality is still portrayed as an anamoly by the media, much like being a person of color used to be (and still is in many places). When that perception changes, then we can talk about the troglodytes that populate this country starting to come around.

The whole point of the characters of David Fisher and Keith Charles on SFU is that they're gay? That makes as much sense as saying that the whole point of the characters of Nate Fisher, Claire Fisher, Ruth Fisher or Brenda Chenowith was that they were straight. The show spent as much time on those characters' sexuality and relationships as it did with gay characters, and gay characters had many of the same relationship problems as straight characters. And they all - whether gay, straight or bi - also had other issues and interests, like jobs/school, families, friends, religion (in David and Keith's case) or other problems. We saw Keith's dysfunctional family, his abusive father, junkie sister and little niece he and David took care of, and his problems with anger control, losing his job as a cop, working as a bodyguard, etc. While Nate had problems with his tumor, David had the PTSD after his kidnapping/mugging.

Really, I don't know how anyone could say that the portrayal of gays or bisexuals on SFU was in any way stereotypical.

 

[DonIago]

Seconded on the SFU situation.

Also I'll state for the record that I don't believe TPTB for Star Trek were homophobic...but I don't know that they weren't, and the evidence available, while not strongly indicative either way, certainly isn't very encouraging.

On an only vaguely-related note it mildly bothered me that for a long time Lost also didn't appear to have any gay characters...not so bad when you're only dealing with the original 40+ survivors (and 10(?) or so primaries), but more of an issue as the number of characters increases. They did remedy that slightly, though I wish they'd done more on that account.
Then there's the even-more-tangential issue that everyone who gets to Heaven in Lost has a Significant Other, but then I remember that Boone and Locke were on their own...which given their friendship (sort of) in season one is slightly amusing if you really want to grasp at straws.

 

[Patrickivan]

I agree with that ^

Absence of evidence is not evidence

Hey! I just said that on the last page... Agree with me too. You bigot!

 

[Bishop76]

Timid maybe, but keep in mind that Star Trek's main purpose is to make money for the studio. The fact that it's a morality play is secondary to that. Alienating large segments of your audience is not something they want to do and, right or wrong, TPTB have decided not to cover gay issues in Trek. It has nothing to do with their homophobia, it has to do with what they think the audiences level of homophobia is.

 

[Bishop76]

I agree with that ^

Absence of evidence is not evidence

Hey! I just said that on the last page... Agree with me too. You bigot!

lol - okay, okay, I agree with you too

 

[Patrickivan]

Timid maybe, but keep in mind that Star Trek's main purpose is to make money for the studio. The fact that it's a morality play is secondary to that. Alienating large segments of your audience is not something they want to do and, right or wrong, TPTB have decided not to cover gay issues in Trek. It has nothing to do with their homophobia, it has to do with what they think the audiences level of homophobia is.

But they did very briefly address it... In a sense they tapped that ass with Riker and the he/she, and Crusher with her Trill babe.

Now it's not exactly a huge topic crushing social commentary, but it's there none-the-less.

 

[DonIago]

As I said earlier in the thread, in a way that's even more cowardly..."Let's allude to homosexuality via metaphor...that way we've placated the gays and the 'phobes can't get too upset because we didn't actually show any gay people!"

I would have been pleasantly surprised to see a gay person in TNG...but when you throw in DS9, VOY, ENT, the utter absence of them becomes a glaring omission.

Will & Grace...sigh...at the time it was awesome to see a show with two gay male primaries, but most of it really doesn't hold up well in retrospect. So much unfulfilled potential.

 

[Bishop76]

Oh, I agree they tiptoed near the issue - there was also that really lousy episode with Dax and her lesbian kiss in DS9.

 

[DonIago]

^Liked the episode, but it's got nothing to say about homosexuality, beyond maybe that one should(?) be willing to defy their society to be true to themselves. Of course, the episode doesn't really judge that either way, and in context it would be a mistake for it to do so.

 

[Satyrquaze]

TPTB in Trek missed a great opportunity, whether deliberately or through sheer short-sightedness… we’ll never really know.

What great opportunity? Trek has never handled relationship drama well in any way. It woulda been a train wreck.

So, you think Moore, Braga, and Co. were forward-thinking enough to neatly avoid the issue?

 

[JarodRussell]

As I said earlier in the thread, in a way that's even more cowardly..."Let's allude to homosexuality via metaphor...that way we've placated the gays and the 'phobes can't get too upset because we didn't actually show any gay people!"

I would have been pleasantly surprised to see a gay person in TNG...but when you throw in DS9, VOY, ENT, the utter absence of them becomes a glaring omission.

Will & Grace...sigh...at the time it was awesome to see a show with two gay male primaries, but most of it really doesn't hold up well in retrospect. So much unfulfilled potential.

There are so many things omitted in Star Trek, homosexuality is just one of them.

 

[DonIago]

True, I also wanted an episode where the crew had to figure out their income taxes. (smirk)

 

[DevilEyes]

On an only vaguely-related note it mildly bothered me that for a long time Lost also didn't appear to have any gay characters...not so bad when you're only dealing with the original 40+ survivors (and 10(?) or so primaries), but more of an issue as the number of characters increases. They did remedy that slightly, though I wish they'd done more on that account.
Then there's the even-more-tangential issue that everyone who gets to Heaven in Lost has a Significant Other, but then I remember that Boone and Locke were on their own...which given their friendship (sort of) in season one is slightly amusing if you really want to grasp at straws.

Well, there was Tom...

Locke was marrying Helen in the Alternate/Flashsideways reality. The church scene wasn't 'heaven' but a sort of reunion of the Losties (or rather, just those who were important to Jack, since it was his moment of 'passing to the other side') which may explain why some people like Eko weren't there (in fact it was because Adewale asked too much money, but never mind). This is presumably why Christian was there as well. If it was Sawyer's moment, we'd see probably his daughter there. If it was Locke, Helen would be there, etc.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I wouldn't say it's homophobia. More like homo-apathy.

I agree. It feels more like this than actual homophobia. I always thought that, in the future, nobody gives a damn. I mean, if you can marry an alien, what's the big deal about someone who has the same gender?

I choose to believe that they never mention it because it's not an issue. No-one cares. Like that Jadzia Dax/ Lenara Kahn thing. Nobody even mentioned the fact that they're both women.

Maybe they should have, though. I don't know.

 

[BillJ]

TPTB in Trek missed a great opportunity, whether deliberately or through sheer short-sightedness… we’ll never really know.

What great opportunity? Trek has never handled relationship drama well in any way. It woulda been a train wreck.

So, you think Moore, Braga, and Co. were forward-thinking enough to neatly avoid the issue?

No.

But based on their collective track record of abysmal straight relationships and sophomoric sex scenes that look like they were written by the writers of Animal House, I'm glad they never tried to give us a gay character or relationship.

 

[Satyrquaze]

No.

But based on their collective track record of abysmal straight relationships and sophomoric sex scenes that look like they were written by the writers of Animal House, I'm glad they never tried to give us a gay character or relationship.

Sad, but true.

 

[sonak]

TPTB in Trek missed a great opportunity, whether deliberately or through sheer short-sightedness… we’ll never really know.

What great opportunity? Trek has never handled relationship drama well in any way. It woulda been a train wreck.

I think it would work best if it was just established casually and not as a big thing. A regular asks Ensign Fred if he can join them for poker or something, and Ensign Fred's like "I would but me and my boyfriend Dave have other plans" or something.

Why would Ensign Fred answer anything other than "I have plans"? Unless he wanted attention. When someone asks me to do something and I have plans with the Misses, I never go "I have plans with the wife". The reason I have plans is immaterial to the question. The situation you state above screams tokenism.

Oh for the love of God, that wasn't meant to be taken as a literal example of the way the conversation should go. What I was saying was that by the time of Trek sexual orientation should be no issue and people would be casual about it.
The time for Trek to make a statement and be progressive about it has LONG PASSED, so at this point, they almost have to be casual about it.

But really, you're NEVER specific about your other plans if a friend asks you to do something? Saying "I have other plans" sounds so vague I would assume you were blowing me off. It's like saying "I can't, I'm washing my hair."

 

[BillJ]

Oh for the love of God, that wasn't meant to be taken as a literal example of the way the conversation should go. What I was saying was that by the time of Trek sexual orientation should be no issue and people would be casual about it.
The time for Trek to make a statement and be progressive about it has LONG PASSED, so at this point, they almost have to be casual about it.

But the way you'd put it in there... seems like pandering. Look! See! We're progressive too! And the chicken way out of the situation. The only thing I require for a gay character/relationship to be involved is that there be a story reason for it. I love hot, fornicating lesbians but I don't want them in Star Trek if there's no reason for it.

But really, you're NEVER specific about your other plans if a friend asks you to do something? Saying "I have other plans" sounds so vague I would assume you were blowing me off. It's like saying "I can't, I'm washing my hair."

Is it really anybody's business what I'm doing?

 

[DonIago]

^^Heck, if anything it seems like people these days are prone to providing TMI rather than the opposite. I don't need to know that the reason you're slow to IM with me is because you only have one hand available to type with!

 

[BillJ]

^^Heck, if anything it seems like people these days are prone to providing TMI rather than the opposite. I don't need to know that the reason you're slow to IM with me is because you only have one hand available to type with!

This is so true! Probably why I am the way I am.