prostitution in the Trek Universe?

[sonak]

It's like DS9's controversial Badda/Bing Badda/Bing , vs TNG's The Host if you think about it.

"Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang" is controversial? Never heard that.

Hah! it Gene showed them because it took all of what, 3 episodes to smash that kind of utopia. Can you imagine going all the way to Voyager with those damn unisex skirts.

But that is what I mean by super Libertarian/liberal ideas in Trek.


Badda/bing was controversial in forums, reviews and discussions.

This is in comparison to "The Host" which was more quiet, not as noticeable, but there is a slight issue of homophobia depending on how you look at it.

Beverly is at first eager to meet the new host when she assumes it is a male. When she sees it was a female her facial expression changes, to obvious disappointment, and afterwards she is very distant.

When I first watched it, I always thought her response was normal, but then upon seeing some articles and looking back, a question that came up was Beverly bringing up an obvious sexual preference?

In the 24th century?

Should she have done it in the same sense that should have Sisko have brought up the racial reference?

Does that make them both racist/homophobes, or were they just stating a harmless opinion while being totally open minded?

Are you seriously persisting with this idea that it makes one somewhat "homophobic" if you're not willing to experiment with various sexual orientations? So to not be homophobic one must not just support equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, they must also be willing to TRY being gay/lesbian and bisexual?

Please. Bev is heterosexual, that's why she reacted the way she did. Nothing more complicated than that.

 

[YARN]

"Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang" is controversial? Never heard that.

Hah! it Gene showed them because it took all of what, 3 episodes to smash that kind of utopia. Can you imagine going all the way to Voyager with those damn unisex skirts.

But that is what I mean by super Libertarian/liberal ideas in Trek.


Badda/bing was controversial in forums, reviews and discussions.

This is in comparison to "The Host" which was more quiet, not as noticeable, but there is a slight issue of homophobia depending on how you look at it.

Beverly is at first eager to meet the new host when she assumes it is a male. When she sees it was a female her facial expression changes, to obvious disappointment, and afterwards she is very distant.

When I first watched it, I always thought her response was normal, but then upon seeing some articles and looking back, a question that came up was Beverly bringing up an obvious sexual preference?

In the 24th century?

Should she have done it in the same sense that should have Sisko have brought up the racial reference?

Does that make them both racist/homophobes, or were they just stating a harmless opinion while being totally open minded?

Are you seriously persisting with this idea that it makes one somewhat "homophobic" if you're not willing to experiment with various sexual orientations? So to not be homophobic one must not just support equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, they must also be willing to TRY being gay/lesbian and bisexual?

Please. Bev is heterosexual, that's why she reacted the way she did. Nothing more complicated than that.

Did you see the word "libertarian" in that post? It's a word that's been popping up in this thread quite a bit. Kind of answers your question about why I have been talking about it...

At any rate, what you say in your post will be rejected as homophobic and heteronormative in 10-20 years. And the analogy to race will almost certainly be there. If you prefer, for example, red-heads, that is different from being disgusted at the thought of dating blacks (because they're black). So yes, or so the argument goes, you are homophobic if you are unwilling to consider hearts, in such case that you're hung up on parts. Why wouldn't you be willing to experiment if you're not homophobic? Transgender is the future, or so it seems.

 

[sonak]

Hah! it Gene showed them because it took all of what, 3 episodes to smash that kind of utopia. Can you imagine going all the way to Voyager with those damn unisex skirts.

But that is what I mean by super Libertarian/liberal ideas in Trek.


Badda/bing was controversial in forums, reviews and discussions.

This is in comparison to "The Host" which was more quiet, not as noticeable, but there is a slight issue of homophobia depending on how you look at it.

Beverly is at first eager to meet the new host when she assumes it is a male. When she sees it was a female her facial expression changes, to obvious disappointment, and afterwards she is very distant.

When I first watched it, I always thought her response was normal, but then upon seeing some articles and looking back, a question that came up was Beverly bringing up an obvious sexual preference?

In the 24th century?

Should she have done it in the same sense that should have Sisko have brought up the racial reference?

Does that make them both racist/homophobes, or were they just stating a harmless opinion while being totally open minded?

Are you seriously persisting with this idea that it makes one somewhat "homophobic" if you're not willing to experiment with various sexual orientations? So to not be homophobic one must not just support equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, they must also be willing to TRY being gay/lesbian and bisexual?

Please. Bev is heterosexual, that's why she reacted the way she did. Nothing more complicated than that.

Did you see the word "libertarian" in that post? It's a word that's been popping up in this thread quite a bit. Kind of answers your question about why I have been talking about it...

At any rate, what you say in your post will be rejected as homophobic and heteronormative in 10-20 years. And the analogy to race will almost certainly be there. If you prefer, for example, red-heads, that is different from being disgusted at the thought of dating blacks (because they're black). So yes, or so the argument goes, you are homophobic if you are unwilling to consider hearts, in such case that you're hung up on parts. Why wouldn't you be willing to experiment if you're not homophobic? Transgender is the future, or so it seems.

Well, I didn't bring up the word "libertarian," that was the poster above me.

As for your overall point, I'll just say that I strongly disagree. I'm somewhat of an essentialist when it comes to gender and sexual identity. I can't imagine that culture or society will change so much that it will overcome the influence of biology and genetics when it comes to sexual orientation. (don't misunderstand this part, I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong, I'm saying that I think it's a very key part of one's identity.)

And what a disturbing idea anyway. It's downright creepy to say that people should be expected to experiment sexually in ways in which they are uncomfortable doing so they can avoid being seen as homophobic.



But again this is all off topic.

Bev is heterosexual. There, that's Trek-related.

 

[YARN]

And what a disturbing idea anyway. It's downright creepy to say that people should be expected to experiment sexually in ways in which they are uncomfortable doing so they can avoid being seen as homophobic.

Creepy or not, I can see that as a plausible future. After all, someone here is already bringing it up - the idea is already in the air.

But again this is all off topic.

Bev is heterosexual. There, that's Trek-related.

We never got off topic. When we make judgments about Star Trek (e.g., would Star Trek rightfully justify voluntary prostitution on libertarian grounds, was Beverly homophobic?), we cannot do so in a vacuum. What is moral/ethical applies universally (to all possible worlds), so we have to make evaluations according to universal criteria, which means that mundane examples (i.e., real examples from our world) and general reasons apply.

Moreover, since Star Trek is didactic (especially TNG), since it serves as an allegory to its own times, since Star Trek has always been "one part morality tale," it hardly seems out of bounds to discuss morality in the context in Star Trek. The point of the show, in large part, is to challenge us and to get us to think about these matters.

Refereeing these points as being "out of bounds" or "off topic" on a Star Trek forum is rather ironic, since the Star Trek itself had to fight off network censors to interrogate these issues in its own time. I'd rather be true to the spirit of the show than labor under the arbitrary letter of "topicality."

 

[Nightdiamond]

Sorry, didn't mean to bring the issue off topic.

My points were if prostitution is practiced in the Federation, I'll bet that it was probably because the Fed have a somewhat Libertarian view of it-- selling your body is no different than selling a house, because it's your own private business.

Now whether if there is still a stigma attached to it, is yet another matter too, but an interesting one.

That's when the issue of going to Risa vs doing it in a hotel in the 24th century debate comes into play.

And how libertarian Fed society and what is acceptable then brings things like drugs, relationships, into play.

Which lead to stuff like do 24th century humans have preferences, do they acknowledge race within themselves, etc.

In other words exact how liberal, or libertarian, or conservative is Fed society....

Ok, back to prostitution,

 

[Yevetha]

Yes, remember. Not gripe, not complain, not ask for "reparations", just remember.

Depends on how long ago had those things happened.

 

[Rojixus]

No it doesn't. The sins of the past are in the past, griping and complaining isn't going to change anything. All you can do is remember and move on and be thankful for what you have.

 

[sonak]

No it doesn't. The sins of the past are in the past, griping and complaining isn't going to change anything. All you can do is remember and move on and be thankful for what you have.

reprarations are justified if the folks who were victimized are still around, that's why the time frame matters. It was proper to give reparations to Japanes-Americans who were imprisoned in WWII when they were still around in the '70s and '80s.

 

[Rojixus]

No it doesn't. The sins of the past are in the past, griping and complaining isn't going to change anything. All you can do is remember and move on and be thankful for what you have.

reprarations are justified if the folks who were victimized are still around, that's why the time frame matters. It was proper to give reparations to Japanes-Americans who were imprisoned in WWII when they were still around in the '70s and '80s.

You're right, I forgot that example. In instances like that, reparations would be justified. It's not, however, justified when the original people who were wronged died centuries ago.

 

[YARN]

You're right, I forgot that example. In instances like that, reparations would be justified. It's not, however, justified when the original people who were wronged died centuries ago.

Should Americans still feel pride about their history? Beating the Brits? Ratifying the Bill of Rights? Freeing the slaves? Defeating Hitler?

None of these events occurred in this century. And with the exception of WWII no one is around who was actually there participating in these events.

 

[Rojixus]

They should feel pride about their history, that's part of the remembrance of the past I mentioned earlier. However, they should be even more proud of their own accomplishments whatever they may be.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

You're right, I forgot that example. In instances like that, reparations would be justified. It's not, however, justified when the original people who were wronged died centuries ago.

Should Americans still feel pride about their history? Beating the Brits? Ratifying the Bill of Rights? Freeing the slaves? Defeating Hitler?

None of these events occurred in this century. And with the exception of WWII no one is around who was actually there participating in these events.

What about subjugating and all but exterminating the amerindians? Creating black slavery in the first place? Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Such patriotic one-note 'pride' about the works of the past generations is in practically all cases an exercise in selective memory and bias.

 

[xortex]

Or worse, revisionist.

 

[Rojixus]

The US did not "create black slavery in the first place", read a damn history book.

 

[horatio83]

You're right, I forgot that example. In instances like that, reparations would be justified. It's not, however, justified when the original people who were wronged died centuries ago.

Should Americans still feel pride about their history? Beating the Brits? Ratifying the Bill of Rights? Freeing the slaves? Defeating Hitler?

None of these events occurred in this century. And with the exception of WWII no one is around who was actually there participating in these events.

You can only be proud of your own achievements.
The point of history is to learn from it and you mainly learn from mistakes. So your selective reading of history that merely focuses upon achievements is not the most helpful for learning. Right now we repeat e.g. worldwide the mistakes from the thirties.

 

[CoveTom]

What about subjugating and all but exterminating the amerindians? Creating black slavery in the first place? Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Not that this has anything to do with Trek, but the United States did not "create black slavery in the first place." No clue how you could even attempt to make the historical argument. And, yeah, as a nation, I think we should be proud of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[horatio83]

I do not know enough about WWII to be able to judge whether the US has had any alternatives at that time and I certainly do not believe that it is wrong to choose an easy end to a war that will not cost any lives on your side.
And from a historical point of view it was perhaps better to see the horrors of a nuclear weapon in '45 than ten or twenty years later when it would have implied nuclear armageddon.
In other words, killing somebody can be necessary ... but it can never be something you are proud of.

 

[sonak]

You're right, I forgot that example. In instances like that, reparations would be justified. It's not, however, justified when the original people who were wronged died centuries ago.

Should Americans still feel pride about their history? Beating the Brits? Ratifying the Bill of Rights? Freeing the slaves? Defeating Hitler?

None of these events occurred in this century. And with the exception of WWII no one is around who was actually there participating in these events.

You can be proud of your country's history(when it's justified), but not on an individual level.

For example, I served in the U.S. Navy, but I don't have any right to be PERSONALLY proud of the navy's victory at Midway.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The US did not "create black slavery in the first place", read a damn history book.

What about subjugating and all but exterminating the amerindians? Creating black slavery in the first place? Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Not that this has anything to do with Trek, but the United States did not "create black slavery in the first place." No clue how you could even attempt to make the historical argument. And, yeah, as a nation, I think we should be proud of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

O yes they did, the black slavery on USA territory - during the civil war the 'past generations' freed the slaves they put into bondage in the first place.

About Hiroshima and Nagasaki, CoveTom - that's insanely controversial.
Read a history book - or, at the very least, go to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


You think your nation should be proud of those bombings?
Necessary - maybe, maybe not - FAR better historians than me were - and are - unable to settle the issue. But proud of killing ~350000 civilians with the only WMDs used against inhabited cities?

Well, apparently one-note patriotic pride is alive and well.

 

[Rojixus]

The US inherited black slavery from the British, who didn't even "create" black slavery either. If you had an ounce of sense in your America-hating head you would know that.