Is Star Trek homophobic?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
- Status
Around the time of Enterprise, I agree with that completely. Any of the series before that, I think it would be tough for them to justify it.
lol - I was thinking about that exact same episode when this was mentioned... man, I miss FotC...
Yes and no. Keep in mind, they did have women kissing on DS9 and I don't think anyone got in any trouble for it. Of course, that was probably more for titillation of the male viewers than anything else.
That was pretty much exactly the purpose of it and the episode itself didn't have much to say, honestly. I think it's about on par with The Host from TNG as far as how tame it was.
Women kissing each other will simply be more acceptable than two males kissing, to some of the viewing audience.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/cbs-blurs-adam-lambert-ga_n_371117.html
That leaves few options of how to show it on the Trek:
1. They can't show open homosexuals for dramatics, because supposedly, it's a non issue-human beings don't have a problem with it anymore.
2. Showing openly two gay males, without an explanation-too risky for the network. They just don't know what type of reaction they will get.
Analogies seems to be the best choice for the network's point of view.
Now that I think about it, The Host can't be an analogy for the acceptance of same sex relationships.
Not if Trek wanted to maintain its theme with its main characters.
Dr. Crusher initially seemed eager to meet the new host, but on seeing that it was a female, she immediately looked disappointed, then later ended the relationship.
That leaves option 4.
If they did show same sex preferences, then they would almost certainly have to show the clashes between preferences.
People simply have opposite sex preferences.
The best way would probably be through humor, BUT- it will not be so cut and dry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/cbs-blurs-adam-lambert-ga_n_371117.html
That leaves few options of how to show it on the Trek:
1. They can't show open homosexuals for dramatics, because supposedly, it's a non issue-human beings don't have a problem with it anymore.
2. Showing openly two gay males, without an explanation-too risky for the network. They just don't know what type of reaction they will get.
Analogies seems to be the best choice for the network's point of view.
Now that I think about it, The Host can't be an analogy for the acceptance of same sex relationships.
Not if Trek wanted to maintain its theme with its main characters.
Dr. Crusher initially seemed eager to meet the new host, but on seeing that it was a female, she immediately looked disappointed, then later ended the relationship.
That leaves option 4.
If they did show same sex preferences, then they would almost certainly have to show the clashes between preferences.
People simply have opposite sex preferences.
The best way would probably be through humor, BUT- it will not be so cut and dry.
Gaw- Fine. Here's your exciting episode addressing gay rights.
Picard: Hello Wessley.
Wessley: Hello sir.
P: Something bothering you?
W: Sir... I've been attracted to other boys lately, but I feel somewhat ashamed.
P: Why is that young man? There's no need. We live in a tolerant society on a tolerant ship! Is someone bothering you about it?
W: Yes sir. You know that we have a crew member from the Onlymenandwomen Continent from Planet x, right? I'm afraid he'll look at me in a negative light.
P: Oh... I see. Well Wes, firstly it shouldn't matter what other people think. But since it actually does, you should perhaps just talk with him about it. He is a Starfleet officer after all!
W: You're right sir! I will.
later that day.
W: Lt Hetronly, I'd like to talk with you.
Lt: Yes ensign.
W: I'm gay and it shouldn't be a problem!
Lt: You're right.
W: That's great!
Lt: Want to go to 10 forward for a drink?
W: Okay!
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn!
Picard: Hello Wessley.
Wessley: Hello sir.
P: Something bothering you?
W: Sir... I've been attracted to other boys lately, but I feel somewhat ashamed.
P: Why is that young man? There's no need. We live in a tolerant society on a tolerant ship! Is someone bothering you about it?
W: Yes sir. You know that we have a crew member from the Onlymenandwomen Continent from Planet x, right? I'm afraid he'll look at me in a negative light.
P: Oh... I see. Well Wes, firstly it shouldn't matter what other people think. But since it actually does, you should perhaps just talk with him about it. He is a Starfleet officer after all!
W: You're right sir! I will.
later that day.
W: Lt Hetronly, I'd like to talk with you.
Lt: Yes ensign.
W: I'm gay and it shouldn't be a problem!
Lt: You're right.
W: That's great!
Lt: Want to go to 10 forward for a drink?
W: Okay!
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn!
Certainly in the eighties the show would have had to have been subtle in how the gay character was depicted in overt sexual or relationship moments.
I guess we could have had him be like Geordi, constantly trying to connect, but constantly failing to score.
That's exactly what I meant. It's no deal at all in the 24th century, so you can't really do episode about it.
No, disliking someone for their attitude is perfectly reasonable.
And I know the attitude you mean. Of several gay friends I've had, there was one who never missed an opprtunity to wave the flag, and proclaim his status - at parties, in diners, you name it. Oddly enough, his partner, who was the more flamboyant of the couple, NEVER did that.
the thing that always amuses me is that neither side on this debate seems at all bothered that Trek has spent 45 years promoting an even more "alternative" lifestyle than mere homosexuality- Bestiality.
Romantic and sexual relationships where the participants are of different *species*? That's zoophilia, technically... The gender of the species doesn't even enter into it...
Sometimes I think of trying a Brass Eye style hoax campaign to lure the vocal moral minority into complaining about it, just for shits and giggles, to see how far I could play them.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Harry Kim's panicked refusal of both Seven Of Nine and, later, that Klingon woman in season 7, are sufficient proof that he's gay, albeit repressed, in the closet, and always looking for a beard. So there we go, a gay regular.
Romantic and sexual relationships where the participants are of different *species*? That's zoophilia, technically... The gender of the species doesn't even enter into it...
Sometimes I think of trying a Brass Eye style hoax campaign to lure the vocal moral minority into complaining about it, just for shits and giggles, to see how far I could play them.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Harry Kim's panicked refusal of both Seven Of Nine and, later, that Klingon woman in season 7, are sufficient proof that he's gay, albeit repressed, in the closet, and always looking for a beard. So there we go, a gay regular.
This.
You could say that the clarinet he plays could be seen as phallic symbol. Although I may be reading too much into those scenes
This.
You could say that the clarinet he plays could be seen as phallic symbol. Although I may be reading too much into those scenes
Not at all. And check out the deleted scenes where the clarinet plays him.
In Soviet Russia, deleted scene watches you.
In Soviet Russia, watched scene deletes you.
Can't decide.
In Soviet Russia, watched scene deletes you.
Can't decide.
Try it from a religious point of view. There are people and then there is everything else, Land animals, birds, fish, etc., all are "beasts" or "the beasts."
An intelligent species would be people, as long as who you are with qualifies as sapiens, technically there is no beastiality.
There was that one stupid species, the one who kidnapped Geordi, (Paknins?) they might not be good to have sex with.
(The Church would still perfer you were married though)
Try it from a religious point of view. There are people and then there is everything else, Land animals, birds, fish, etc., all are "beasts" or "the beasts."
An intelligent species would be people, as long as who you are with qualifies as sapiens, technically there is no beastiality.
There was that one stupid species, the one who kidnapped Geordi, (Paknins?) they might not be good to have sex with.
(The Church would still perfer you were married though)
Actually- this makes me think of one hell of a point. There was absolutely no representation of Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, et c... What about them? The world is made up of far more religious people then gay (I'm guessing), yet they received even less representation then gays, lesbians, bi, trans, multis, confused, unknowns, andros, and assexuals!
How utterly unfair.
Try it from a religious point of view. There are people and then there is everything else, Land animals, birds, fish, etc., all are "beasts" or "the beasts."
An intelligent species would be people, as long as who you are with qualifies as sapiens, technically there is no beastiality.
There was that one stupid species, the one who kidnapped Geordi, (Paknins?) they might not be good to have sex with.
(The Church would still perfer you were married though)
Actually- this makes me think of one hell of a point. There was absolutely no representation of Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, et c... What about them? The world is made up of far more religious people then gay (I'm guessing), yet they received even less representation then gays, lesbians, bi, trans, multis, confused, unknowns, andros, and assexuals!
How utterly unfair.
While you've done a very good job of trolling here, do you have anything to actually contribute to this thread?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
