Star Trek and Homosexuality

[DAYoung]

I also think romance, as opposed to friendship, requires a certain mature honesty about physical relationships, and Star Trek has usually aimed too low for this (in television, if not books).

Do you mean they have to show more sex in order to make relationships appear more real? If so, I don't agree. They tried that in ENT and it didn't work. They showed some sex, but it was anything but romantic or mature. In my opinion anyway.

It's not only Trek that has trouble mixing sex and romance in a mature way. I live in a country that has more explicit sex on prime time tv and in movies than violence, but the sex usually doesn't involve any real romance.

I agree that it's not about showing more sex. It's understanding how to portray real physical relationships in a mature way. The flipside of twee, melodramatic romance is pure physicality, devoid of tenderness.

As I wrote earlier, part of the problem is lack of continuity. Many relationships are too short to be developed in any depth.

But it's also that there's a divide at work: love without the suggestion of carnality, and sex without love. Both are products of a conservative approach, which has trouble dealing with sex in a grown up way.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Do you mean they have to show more sex in order to make relationships appear more real? If so, I don't agree. They tried that in ENT and it didn't work. They showed some sex, but it was anything but romantic or mature. In my opinion anyway.

Well lets face it, all they had in mind for ENT was: "We have a new cast of attractive men and women, how many times a season can we get them in their underwear--or better yet, naked!"

A gay couple in Trek isn't about showing soft core pornography, but having a demographic present in a future where all boundries and bigotry are long since dead and buried. Having a female captain didn't mean she was burning her bra ever other week.

Some recognition for LGBT would be nice is all I'd want to see.

 

[Miss Lemon]

As I wrote earlier, part of the problem is lack of continuity. Many relationships are too short to be developed in any depth.

I can see your point and I partly agree, but the fact is that the writers did manage to depict wonderful, believable friendships that slowly developed over time. As teacake mentioned before, this might be one of the reasons slash is popular. The relationship Trip has with Archer feels more real than the one he has with T'Pol, for example.

But it's also that there's a divide at work: love without the suggestion of carnality, and sex without love. Both are products of a conservative approach, which has trouble dealing with sex in a grown up way.

Interesting point. If I had to choose, I'd go with some old school, non-carnal, Fred Astaire romance anyday.

 

[DAYoung]

I can see your point and I partly agree, but the fact is that the writers did manage to depict wonderful, believable friendships that slowly developed over time.

Absolutely. In fact, I think I said that earlier.

As teacake mentioned before, this might be one of the reasons slash is popular. The relationship Trip has with Archer feels more real than the one he has with T'Pol, for example.

I agree. Kirk and Spock seems more tender than Kirk and [insert alien inexplicably manipulated by Kirk's manliness]

 

[T'Girl]

but the sex usually doesn't involve any real romance.

So sex yes, lovemaking no.

Trip and T'Pol rubbing each others feet, very sensual, Picard banging Vash and then running away, not so much.

Star Trek can show true romance, so it is possible. Trip & T'Pol was one. Worf & Jadzia is another I though was handled nicely because there was a slow build up of the relationship, they didn't suddenly fall in love.

Problem is, with the maybe/maybe not addition of Riker & Deanna, those are the only romances in all of Star Trek.

The relationship Trip has with Archer feels more real than the one he has with T'Pol, for example.

It is of course possible for a relationship to be a close friendship and not a romance. If Star Trek is going to take the step to having a gay relationship, then there is going to pretty much at some point going to have to be a demonstration of physical affection shown on screen, to differentiate that relationship from a close non-gay bromance.

I see Arab men holding hands in public all the time, part of their culture, and not enough of a indicator for the viewers. I'm Latin, men kiss of the cheek from time to time, again not enough for the viewers. As part of the overall story line, Star Trek would have to "spell it out" if there was a character who was gay. Otherwise we back to anyone of the show whose sexuality isn't depicted on screen or in dialog might be gay.

Star Trek is a show, a performance, unless a fictional character's sexual orientation is shown, then from a certain way of looking at it, they don't have one.

 

[Miss Lemon]

I can see your point and I partly agree, but the fact is that the writers did manage to depict wonderful, believable friendships that slowly developed over time.

Absolutely. In fact, I think I said that earlier.

I noticed, but refuting your argument with your own quote didn't seem the polite thing to do.

 

[Deckerd]

but the sex usually doesn't involve any real romance.

So sex yes, lovemaking no.

Trip and T'Pol rubbing each others feet, very sensual, Picard banging Vash and then running away, not so much.

Star Trek can show true romance, so it is possible. Trip & T'Pol was one. Worf & Jadzia is another I though was handled nicely because there was a slow build up of the relationship, they didn't suddenly fall in love.

Problem is, with the maybe/maybe not addition of Riker & Deanna, those are the only romances in all of Star Trek.

I thought the only convincingly done long-term relationship was Tom Paris and B'lanna.

 

[Miss Lemon]

I thought the only convincingly done long-term relationship was Tom Paris and B'lanna.

I tend to agree with you on this one.

As much as I love DS9, I didn't quite get most of the relationship choices. The relationship between Sisko and Yates being the exception.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This is still my favorite Trek relationship!

 

[Miss Lemon]

Yeah well, I couldn't stand Ezri.

Trek not only did a lousy job on depicting romance, but also on depicting counselors.

That and I blamed her for taking the wonderful and gorgeous Jadzia away from me.

 

[Deckerd]

She was an annoying little spud, wasn't she?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yeah well, I couldn't stand Ezri.

uh oh..

 

[Miss Lemon]

Yeah well, I couldn't stand Ezri.

uh oh..

What? Are you going to de-friend me now?

But honey, we do agree on the important stuff!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

No I'm just waiting for the Rush of avenging drool..

And yes, yes we do

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Oh and I agree with the depiction of counseling, it was even worse than Troi. Cringeworthy viewing.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The Host dealt with a response from Beverly, who rejected her lover because its new host was female.

No. Beverley rejected Odan because she didn't think she could handle the Trill worm moving to potentially a series of humanoid bodies. The fact that this version of Odan host was female was not the issue.

In the Host, Riker's girlfriend was literally a girl.

The Riker and Soren episode was "The Outcast".

 

[iguana_tonante]

No I'm just waiting for the Rush of avenging drool..

Very clever.

 

[Deckerd]

Does he have the whole board wired to go off when Her Name Is Taken In Vain?

 

[Miss Lemon]

Who?!

 

[Deckerd]

We cannot invoke the name.