Do you often wish that you were living in Star Trek now?
- Thread starter Civ001
- Start date
- Status
I guess smartasses can't stop being smartasses either. 
Blind can drive cars when the car is equipped to allow that. Doesn't change the fact that non-blind people do not need to rely on that equipment.
People with functioning legs don't need these either to run. http://mb.cision.com/Public/logos/19853_b84796ebbfcf7e76.gif
Blind can drive cars when the car is equipped to allow that. Doesn't change the fact that non-blind people do not need to rely on that equipment.
People with functioning legs don't need these either to run. http://mb.cision.com/Public/logos/19853_b84796ebbfcf7e76.gif
No gays on display, but plenty of heteros, at a certain point it ceases to be a co-incidence.
What's wrong with it? By the way, in DS9 such relations were shown between Jadzia and Dax's ex-wife.
What do you mean what's wrong with it??? Because Star Trek touted itself as a show about a supposedly diverse, IDIC filled future that has evolved past racism, sexism, everyism, and yet they deliberately chose not to include gays. 700+ episodes where a reference to people being coupled in some way occurs in most of them, even if it's only "his wife" as part of the conversation and yet we can all name the one or two times an actual non-hetero relationship was referenced. And the two times that come up were aliens where you can just say "well that's what they do". I'm referring to the Trill story you mention and the co-husband reference to a murdered Bolian. THAT'S IT. The default norm of Star Trek is heterosexual, but it's not just the norm it's the ONLY. It's not like okay every ten episodes there is a pronoun used that indicates a non-hetero relationship, it's ALL episodes. All 700+. This is a huge and ridiculous gap in our brave new world of the future.
As for me, I think that Star Trek can be interesting not only for adult audience, but also for children and teenagers.
In that case it's understandable, that producers can't include disputable things like smoking or gay-relationships into series.
From the other side, Star Trek is a concept of perfect world (at least, initially), and producers need to follow this concept.
In the perfect world all people can have their own children. Diseases, that prevent to get native children, are not a part of perfect world.
That's what fanfic is for.There's a myriad of stories with K/S, Sulu/Chekov, Spock/Sulu, Garak/Bashir, Janeway/Seven, and other combinations as well. In the Valjiir stories many of the characters, both male and female, are bisexual and those who aren't, don't irrationally judge those who are (well, mostly).
People write all kinds of fanfic. If you're going to ask why people write slash are you also asking why people write stories where Deanna and Picard are a couple? Because it's the same thing, people like the idea of a friendship advancing to a relationship or sexual liaison and they write it.
The main question is:
Why is true friendship less valuable than gay-sex?
Deep friendship is a very rare miracle. People must learning how to get such relationship. It's really hard. Much easier have sex and tell "oh, we have wonderful and unique relationships". Slash is a substitution of concepts, IMO.
Last edited:
All of whom should see normal relationships, if you want to exclude graphic sexuality from Star Trek okay, but don't exclude gays
How are gay relationships in the tinyist way "disreputable?"
Ideally you would be in a deep friendship with the people you're having sexual relationship with. It not required, but it's is nice.
Slash is a simple recognition that relationships take many forms.
The Academy is on Earth, as is Starfleet Headquarters.
I think the whole meaning of what Roddenberry was trying to do with Star Trek (beyond making money) has clearly whooshed right over your head.
The Academy is on Earth, as is Starfleet Headquarters.
I suppose some aliens might face prejudice although I somehow doubt they're working in sweatshops or living in grinding poverty. It's probably a matter of acceptance over time, ie having Vulcans around might not be a super big deal any more, a Ferengi is rather more novel.
All you've brought up is a couple of aliens that got sponsorships to get into one of the most prestigious careers in the federation which... doesn't really tell us a whole lot about life on earth.
Last edited:
No. Infertility is a disease. Homosexuality is an attribute of personality (may be, I don't know exactly). Anyway, both of them are preventing people to have their own children.
It wasn't my words. "Disputable" - topic, that needs to be discussed, unobvious and not trivial thing.
Totally agreed.
May be. I really thought, that Star Trek is about human future.
Many academic institutions require a recommendation or sponsorship from someone already in the profession the prospective student wants to pursue. When I applied to get into the Bachelor of Education program in college, I had to include a letter of recommendation from one of my current teachers.Nog got into Starfleet Academy because he was friends with Sisko's son and knew Sisko personally.
Kirk recieved help entering the Academy from a Starfleet Officer too ... perhaps a old friend of his father's?
The impression I got was that Saavik had Spock's endorsement, and Wesley had Picard's.
The doorway to success was opened by someone they knew. Even in the future it's helpful to have at least semi-powerful friends.
There's a nice fanfic I read some years back about how Tasha Yar got into the Academy; it was Tuvok who sponsored her.
I don't want to imagine what replicated Doritos taste like.
It's been decades since potato chips were really flavorful (the Hostess brand of pizza-flavored chips, for example, and their taco-flavored ones... I miss those).Oh, really? That's news to the people who use various kinds of current reproductive technology to assist them, and just because someone is lesbian or gay, that doesn't prevent them from conceiving or fathering children. They may find it a disagreeable method of having their own biological children, but it's not physically impossible. And if they prefer not to do it "the old-fashioned way" there are always other options.
Buffy had a gay relationship of a main character in 1999. Ran for several years. You know back then when Voyager was also on the air and DS9 was finishing up and Enterprise had yet to begin.
DO NOT equate gayness to smoking as if just like smoking we don't want kids to do it. This is gay bashing whether you realize it or not.
Gayness is not a disease. Gayness also doesn't prevent people from having their own children. People choose not to have children or to have children regardless of being straight or gay. Why am I having to explain this.
Who said anything about value? There are probably half a million fanfic stories out there, covering EVERYTHING. Why does one story all about sex have anything to do with another story all about friendship? It's not like every time you write a sex story a friendship story disappears.
On the old Epiphany Trek site, a Starfleet officer is posted to a allied ship and in time has a sexual affair with one of the ship's officers.
Basically they were sapient Lamas.
The two of them actually had to spent some time just trying to figure out how they were going to make love.
^ CUIDADO!!! LLAMAS!!!!!! 
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBaUmx5s6iE[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBaUmx5s6iE[/yt]
I have nothing against the gayness. I want just to explain:
1. Star Trek is about our future. About good, nearly perfect future. Please, let it be so.
2. In perfect future there is no place for suffering.
3. Homosexual family can't have totally native children. The child always has father (man) and mother (woman). Homosexual family can't produce children, such family can only go for compromise solution. And it's a kind of suffering for one of the parents (who is not biological parent for a child), for true biological parent, who can't be with child and for the child, who understand, that he has mother and father, but he can interact only with two fathers / mothers.
Deeper and deeper you go...
I missed this before...
Since there are nearly seven BILLION humans on planet Earth, I don't think infertility is an issue.
There's nothing perfect nor nearly perfect about the Trek future, so no real conceptual problem exists there.
There's always a place for suffering. First of the noble truths, right?
Anyway, infertility is not a disease. It's a biological condition (a bunch of them, really) that some people have and many others don't. Many who are infertile, of course, don't like it.
This is like the silly assertion that Picard ought to have hair because baldness will have been "cured."
Fernando had a reputation for being pretty proficient; they could have called him up on the holodeck for a tutorial.
There's always a place for suffering. First of the noble truths, right?
Anyway, infertility is not a disease. It's a biological condition (a bunch of them, really) that some people have and many others don't. Many who are infertile, of course, don't like it.
This is like the silly assertion that Picard ought to have hair because baldness will have been "cured."
On the old Epiphany Trek site, a Starfleet officer is posted to a allied ship and in time has a sexual affair with one of the ship's officers.
Basically they were sapient Lamas.
The two of them actually had to spent some time just trying to figure out how they were going to make love.
Fernando had a reputation for being pretty proficient; they could have called him up on the holodeck for a tutorial.
A
Amaris
Guest
No, and I'll explain why:
Firstly, Star Trek's future is not a perfect one, just a future where technology and human emotional development has improved significantly.
Secondly, if I wanted to have children, I could adopt one. After all, in the future there are still unforeseen circumstances.
In short, here, or there, I'm not suffering for it.
As for me, I think that Star Trek can be interesting not only for adult audience, but also for children and teenagers.
In that case it's understandable, that producers can't include disputable things like smoking or gay-relationships into series.
Yes those are your words.
Disputable means "not established as fact, or open to question or debate." So allow me to repeat my question how are gay relationships "not established as fact, or open to question or debate" in the tiniest way?
Is it that you somehow doubt that such relationship actually exist?
- Status
Similar threads
