Slightly pathetic that theres never been LGBT characters in ST

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You could look at it as anti trans.

Beverly found out her "chick had a d___," and said no.

Same principle more or less.

No, not really. Why is it anti-anything for Beverly not to want to sleep with another woman? To not be attracted to a specific group is not being "anti-" that group. Like I said, she was as nice as she could be.

And you could even remove the gender angle completely. Maybe Beverly's just not comfortable with the idea of her lover constantly switching bodies. (Remember, this is the first time anyone ever found out about the Trill doing that.) And that's also understandable. Dating a joined Trill would always run that risk. Is it prejudicial not to be into that, as well? Hardly.

It's also interesting that Odan's relationship with Beverly could not continue anyway, since it's against Trill law to do so. Although Odan (regardless of host) may be famous enough in Trill society to get around such restrictions.

 

[Green Shirt]

I find it odd that some folks on one side of any hot button issue love to bitch and moan about tolerance and acceptance, while exhibiting neither of these toward those who disagree with them.

I am not pointing a finger toward any one person or group in particular, its just human nature. People feel the way they do, and they have every right to do so.

 

[borgboy]

I don't think Beverly was homophobic. Shes straight and Odan was now a woman.

 

[xavier]

"Turning it into something sexual just ruins it" for YOU.

However you are not the arbiter of ME and how I enjoy my fiction. Nor does my enjoyment of turning bromances into something sexual have any effect at all on your enjoyment of the bromance as a platonic friendship.

Guess what, you aren't killing my buzz by only seeing these bromances as platonic for yourself. And if you see my sexualizing of these bromances as having any effect on you then you're taking other people's fun way too personally.

Well I believe that is why it is called FICTION or to be exact FANFICTION

Notice how whenever a film has a bad script the main criticism is that the scripts reads like a fan fiction and not a script written by professional writers.

I am trying to make clear of the difference between the two.

I am not trying to mess with your pleasure or what turns you on what I am saying is there is a fine line between an actual serious story to tell that soft porn fanfiction written from a fan perspective usually girls

at the oscars fanfictions of a film do not win awards...The original and adapted screen play does.

Have fun with whatever you want but blurring the line between the two would get you very confused.

xavier where did anyone ever claim fanfiction was the same as fiction on the screen?

Oh except for 50 Shades of course, which started out as Twilight fanfiction and made the writer millions of dollars, go her. A "girl" though, so you'd best dismiss her as such

Yes the irony of that. 50 shades of grey is one of the worst, darkest and most terrible moment in publishing in my personal opinon.

the fanfic actually became a book and now they are making a film. it is atrocious and terrible.

the book is soft porn and it was read by girls by 95%. which is my main point.

lets see how many real awards the book will win or how many people will take it seriously.

the author wrote it first as a fanfic but it became an actual book and she had to change it drastically.

50 shades of nonsense (grey) is not about bella and Edward from twilight.it is a brand knew story with original characters.

a personal advise, if you want to be a writer, it will be best you make a person like JK Rowling or Anne Rice a role model to follow and not EL James who is the author of 50 Shades.

 

[Commishsleer]

the book is soft porn and it was read by girls by 95%. which is my main point.

What exactly is your point?

 

[{ Emilia }]

I'd like to ask the same question. Why was the "girls" thing pointed out? How is it in any way relevant?

 

[1001001]

I'd like to ask the same question. Why was the "girls" thing pointed out? How is it in any way relevant?

How is any of this relevant to LGBT characters (or lack thereof) in Star Trek???

 

[Jedi_Master]

Star Trek has always been mildly progressive, but it is still a commercial product, and the need to make money without upsetting advertisers or the majority of it's audience has moderated what characters or concepts will be included in a TV series or movie.

American attitudes towards homosexuality have dramatically changed in the last five years a period of time in which no Star Trek with the exception of nuTrek was being produced.

It is possible that a homosexual character may be introduced in the next nuTrek film, but in all reality the most likely place for an LGBT character is in a new Trek TV series.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I don't think Beverly was homophobic. Shes straight and Odan was now a woman.

But she doesn't say that she's straight.

So is she straight?

It's possible that if Odan had been a woman when they met, they would have hit it off and knocked a few orgasms out of the park, because during their break up the only reason stated as to why she gave up on that relationship is that he kept changing bodies and it had nothing to do with how "he" was now packing a vagina.

I mean, two bodies in a week was fine.

But Bev thought that 3 sexual partners (or 4 if you count the symbiont.) in still less than one week would still be okay until the curtain raised, and her conviction fell.

Or, she was lying.

The most very sad thing, is that Will could no longer make jokes about how he hurt his back last night doing Wesley's Mother to Wesley any more since he probably did hurt his back doing Wesley's mother at least once during all the times he did Wesley's mother during this episode.

Sometimes it's not funny because it's true.

 

[borgboy]

If Beverly was not straight i think she wouldve been fine with the female Odan.

 

[BillJ]

Yes the irony of that. 50 shades of grey is one of the worst, darkest and most terrible moment in publishing in my personal opinon.

Statements like this are when I begin to start not taking a persons opinion seriously. It's just someone throwing a tantrum over something they don't like. No one forced you to buy it and no one forced you to read it, and there are several hundred other books published in any given year.

lets see how many real awards the book will win or how many people will take it seriously.

The only things I would care about in the author's situation is: Did I have fun writing it? Did I make a shitload of money? Did people have fun reading it?

Awards? Who gives a flying fuck? I don't judge something by the number of awards it has won. I judge it by how much enjoyment I got out of it.

 

[T'Girl]

I always thought of it like, they're hundreds of years into the future, and it's no longer a big deal like it is today and is therefore not mentioned ...

Problem with that is, hundreds of years in the future we see lots of heterosexual hookups, romances, couples and marriages.

Heterosexuality is also "no big deal" yet we see these relationships in abundance.

If in the future straight and gay exist side by side in term of societial acceptance, why are only heteros depicted?

In universe reason?

 

[Ithekro]

One things about Star Trek and at least ethnic groups, is that, at least in the 60s, you would have an Asian and an African on the bridge of the Enterprise, without it actually being pointed out for the most part. There were their as equals doing their job. Who is to say that there weren't homosexuals also on the bridge, doing there job. It is just there sexuality didn't come up, or they were not of the flamboyant types.

Is it about sexuality or about lifestyle? You wouldn't normally see flamboyant character types in a military setting or a serious setting like the bridge of a starship, would you? The stereotype "flaming homosexual" wouldn't be a standard type anymore, would it? After centuries of acceptance? There would be no reason for any extra social or cultural styles to be added to a character, when they aren't, in most cases, for the likes of Uhura and Sulu.

Sulu being Asian was almost never brought up. Uhura being African only came up, I think, twice were it had any meaning. Once when they encountered Abraham Lincoln, and then when she was being reeducated, her having learned Swahili first, then English. Chekov's Russian was done for laughs. Scott's accent was used just to be used. In The Next Generation Worf's Klingon was pushed a lot. Data being a android was pushed a lot. La'Forge being blind came up from time to time, but aside from his external appliance, most of the time it wasn't a issue unless the plot needed either his VISOR for reasons, or to make a situation.

If in the future straight and gay exist side by side in term of societial acceptance, why are only heteros depicted?

In universe reason?

Percentage of the population being homosexual or at least not heterosexual is what?

 

[doubleohfive]

One things about Star Trek and at least ethnic groups, is that, at least in the 60s, you would have an Asian and an African on the bridge of the Enterprise, without it actually being pointed out for the most part. There were their as equals doing their job. Who is to say that there weren't homosexuals also on the bridge, doing there job. It is just there sexuality didn't come up, or they were not of the flamboyant types.

Is it about sexuality or about lifestyle? You wouldn't normally see flamboyant character types in a military setting or a serious setting like the bridge of a starship, would you? The stereotype "flaming homosexual" wouldn't be a standard type anymore, would it? After centuries of acceptance? There would be no reason for any extra social or cultural styles to be added to a character, when they aren't, in most cases, for the likes of Uhura and Sulu.

Sulu being Asian was almost never brought up. Uhura being African only came up, I think, twice were it had any meaning. Once when they encountered Abraham Lincoln, and then when she was being reeducated, her having learned Swahili first, then English. Chekov's Russian was done for laughs. Scott's accent was used just to be used. In The Next Generation Worf's Klingon was pushed a lot. Data being a android was pushed a lot. La'Forge being blind came up from time to time, but aside from his external appliance, most of the time it wasn't a issue unless the plot needed either his VISOR for reasons, or to make a situation.

If in the future straight and gay exist side by side in term of societial acceptance, why are only heteros depicted?

In universe reason?

Percentage of the population being homosexual or at least not heterosexual is what?

Which is why I always advocated that Enterprise should have had a Muslim or Arab among the regular crew. In 2001, seeing such a character every week working with the crew would have, I think, been a lovely way to maintain that exact element from TOS and to me, anyway, is one of the huge missed opportunities of that series.

 

[Ithekro]

Or was there a genetic policy shift at least for the humans, who seem to be constantly expanding to new colonies, which would imply a lot of breeding going on while Earth still has a massive population in the billions. Some have implied the homosexuality is perhaps a genetic safeguard for species that are overbreeding in their environment. It would be logical. There are too many people, therefore the more of the population becomes homosexual to reduce the likelihood of more breeding, to keep the population down. But if their is room to expand the population, there would be less need for homosexuality on a genetic or species level, as there is no need to control the population.

I have no idea if that idea has any soundness to it, but it sounds logical, without any sort of backup.


As for Muslim or Arab characters...aside from Bashir (born in Sudan if I recall), there wasn't many. One suggestion was that was where most of the destruction was in the Eugenic and Third World Wars, resulting is a marked decrease in those populations even by the 24th century.

For Enterprise, they would have had to add the character later on, since 9/11 happened after they filmed the start of the first season. They probably were not thinking about it at all, or they didn't want to have backlash, as Hollywood has problems showing Muslims or Arabs properly to begin with, much less try to fit them in a future setting where religion seem to be on the way out. At which point you have a man or woman that is Arabic or North African, who really isn't Muslim because humanity has moved past religion. What is the point after that since they would have issues at some point. If a woman, she's be in a normal Starfleet uniform with nothing added since she probably won't be Muslim since that would be out in the utopian, non-religions Federation Earth. Would that offend actual Muslim viewers such as the King of Jordan (who was a walk on guest in the 1990s).

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The moral debate is irrelevant. You couldn't get a character like that past the censors in those days. And remember, the censors work for the people who fronted a good portion of money to get your series made. You upset them enough, they'll pull their money and you won't have any show period.

TOS pushed it very far having minorities in intelligent command positions on the Enterprise and Roddenberry was damned lucky he got that. He lost having a woman being second in command. He did win with Nichelle Nichols having the right to wear a mini-skirt, which was a victory for the women's movement in the 60s.

Simpsons has had gay characters...

Smithers was 'Implied gay' at the beginning, and didn't become 'Confirmed gay' until later. The first episode they had that directly addressed homosexuality was in season 8 or so, around 1997.

 

[Nightdiamond]

It's not homophobia. Beverly simply doesn't like girls, and was being as nice as possible about it - trying to let Kareel down easy, so to speak.


All accepting? If you mean tolerant, then of course. But there will always be sexual preferences. That's human nature, I would think. People will have certain groups that they aren't sexually interested in, things that they won't do, etc. That in itself is harmless.

No, not really. Why is it anti-anything for Beverly not to want to sleep with another woman? To not be attracted to a specific group is not being "anti-" that group. Like I said, she was as nice as she could be.

Here's the problem though--Beverly can't be shown saying she's not attracted to females. Even if it's the truth.

Just imagine in the episode Beverly said instead, "I'm sorry, but I'm just not attracted to females" -- it's inconceivable.

Beverly as a 24th century human, has to be shown as being open minded and accepting with no prejudices.

Fans would look at her, especially a TNG character, differently from that point on. Notice how Will Riker accepts the advances of an androgynous looking female in "The Outcast".

But she doesn't say that she's straight. So is she straight?

It's possible that if Odan had been a woman when they met, they would have hit it off and knocked a few orgasms out of the park, because during their break up the only reason stated as to why she gave up on that relationship is that he kept changing bodies and it had nothing to do with how "he" was now packing a vagina.

I mean, two bodies in a week was fine.

But Bev thought that 3 sexual partners (or 4 if you count the symbiont.) in still less than one week would still be okay until the curtain raised, and her conviction fell. Or, she was lying.

Ironic, but if she simply admitted she wasn't attracted to Odan because she was now a female, she would have looked less homophobic.

She's clearly disappointed that Odan is now a female, but when she dumps her, she says it's because she can't keep up with the changes. So she's being slightly dishonest.

This amounts to honestly, a P.C answer to let them both off easily. But by lying, in a way, made her appear somewhat more homophobic--for not being honest. Beverly is not a homophobe--but both her reaction and answer shows she's uncomfortable.

It's like she's secretly saying "ewww I just can't go there", but out loud she must say, "it's because you keep changing too many bodies and I can't handle that".

She's definitely has the right to be attracted to only males without being called a homophobic. Perhaps some of the blame goes to the Trek universe that's kind of unsure how evolved humans are supposed to behave in situations like this.

 

[borgboy]

Even before Smithers officially came out on the Simpsons, John Waters did an episode where he played a version of himself who was Homer's gay friend.

I do agree that the end of the episode with Odan could've been handled a little better. The ending is vague in exactly what's going on, since Beverly's words don't really match her actions. It does feel like Beverly is being less than honest. I still don't think she's homophobic for not wanting to be with a woman, just straight.

When this episode came out, my opinion, and the opinions of other queer Trek fans that I knew, was that it was a positive thing. At the very least we had a LGBT -ish character in
femme Odan, a man who was now a woman and loved another woman. Back then we were a lot easier to please I guess.

I know Odan has been in some of the comics - where the female host died and Beverly was more receptive at the end to a new male host. Which doesn't make the issue of LGBT and Odan come off any better. If nothing else it backs up the message that gender and orientation was the real issue with Beverly and not the change of bodies on it's own. Which still isn't homophobic, just dishonest.

I would love to see Odan used in some way in the novels, but probably would work better if set before Beverly and Picard married.

 

[Alrik]

Problem with that is, hundreds of years in the future we see lots of heterosexual hookups, romances, couples and marriages.

Heterosexuality is also "no big deal" yet we see these relationships in abundance.

If in the future straight and gay exist side by side in term of societial acceptance, why are only heteros depicted?

In universe reason?

I don't think there is an in universe reason. The answer is still out here in the real world. Unfortunately, while Star Trek was still on TV, TPTB were not in a position to take that leap, no matter how badly some might have wanted to. TNG did make an effort to address the issue with The Outcast by walking up to the line, but they still didn't cross it.

It all comes down to the fact that Star Trek was a television show produced by a TV studio, and was held accountable by its United States ratings. Public opinion regarding the LGBT community had not evolved enough yet. The studio was in no position to make a move that could be deemed controversial enough buy the ultra conservative wack-groups to give them an excuse to protest the show and possibly boycott their sponsors. Their hands were tied.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think there is an in universe reason. The answer is still out here in the real world. Unfortunately, while Star Trek was still on TV, TPTB were not in a position to take that leap, no matter how badly some might have wanted to. TNG did make an effort to address the issue with The Outcast by walking up to the line, but they still didn't cross it.

It all comes down to the fact that Star Trek was a television show produced by a TV studio, and was held accountable by its United States ratings. Public opinion regarding the LGBT community had not evolved enough yet. The studio was in no position to make a move that could be deemed controversial enough buy the ultra conservative wack-groups to give them an excuse to protest the show and possibly boycott their sponsors. Their hands were tied.

I think it had more to do with the shows becoming more conservative and living on TOS' reputation of being progressive. I think the people who ran the shows were more conservative than their 1960's counterparts.