Makes you wonder if they end up having a bit of a falling out, hence his more distant relationship with her we seem to see in TOS
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x05 - "Spock Amok"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Makes you wonder if they end up having a bit of a falling out, hence his more distant relationship with her we seem to see in TOS
It's not the sexuality. It's the worry about its sanctity. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that. He's probably straight. Why does one need absolute certainty.
I am now seeing the irony of trying so hard to get my point across. I guess I am always going to be prickly about this kind of thing. The arguments feel like those from light bigots who would say 'not that there's anything wrong with that' while really feeling that, deep down, there is something wrong with that.
Don't ask me. I haven't argued that it is.
It's the very fact that you call it "sanctity" as if it has to be broken, when the people you're arguing against are simply using past evidence to reach a conclusion, which I called hostile.
There's a lot of talk about Chapel and Spock's relationship with each other and relationships with other people and how it's all going to tie in with TOS. While I don't want completely flagrant, pointless disconnects with what happened in TOS, I also don't want SNW to spend a lot of time worrying about this kind of thing.
While it's fun seeing connections to TOS, I really hope the show focuses on exploring new stories, new worlds, new relationships, and not on answering a bunch of fan service questions about how X or Y came to be. I think it'll greatly narrow it's potential audience if that's the route it takes.
While it's fun seeing connections to TOS, I really hope the show focuses on exploring new stories, new worlds, new relationships, and not on answering a bunch of fan service questions about how X or Y came to be. I think it'll greatly narrow it's potential audience if that's the route it takes.
Gene's so called fascination for "full sexual freedom" was heavily exaggerated later on. Gene's main fascination was banging females (actresses in particular). There is no "enlightened thinking" involved.
Disagreeing with other people is not fragility, and insulting others for disagreeing with you is not strength.
My statement wasn't directed at you - it was a reaction to lots of chauvinist comments both in this thread and a couple of others going around right now. You chose to take that statement personally, as you've chosen to take previous statements as hostile.
Even so, if you want to address their claims and arguments and points, by all means do so, but refrain from trying to determine the psychological reasons as to why they're making those points. It's not very useful and unlikely to really hit the mark, even if it makes you feel good about saying it.
It's no one's fault but your own if you made a general statement right after an exchange between me and another poster, without specifying what you were talking about.
It's perfectly natural to question the motivations of people who are arguing for a point. It could be the need to be right, of course. But when it's about a powerful majority worrying about their purity, it's going to come off as possibly motivated. And I do not think Mr. Laser Beam is bigoted. I thought he was joking with faux outrage.
Yes, I did use the word sanctity in mockery because a fictional character's sexuality is not sacrosanct, especially the need to be 100% 'canonically' straight. I do not need to respect it as if it were someone's faith. If that comes off as me being bigoted against straight people for denying that right to purity, so be it.
Yes, I did use the word sanctity in mockery because a fictional character's sexuality is not sacrosanct, especially the need to be 100% 'canonically' straight. I do not need to respect it as if it were someone's faith. If that comes off as me being bigoted against straight people for denying that right to purity, so be it.
Nobody said anything about sanctity or purity except you. YOU are the one who is bringing it up as some sort of important aspect. It's not apparent in the argument of those who disagree with you and THAT is why I took exception to your post. The only one who seems to exhibits an ideological bent to their argument on this specific issue is you.
EDIT: Which is sad because, actually, I broadly agree with you, but not this specific accusation you're making.
Last edited:
Sure.
The original poster the conversation started with was insistent that someone could not be straight and also have had feelings/attraction to people of the same sex. This is a dubious statement about all people who identify as straight, as others in the thread have pointed out. People who have called themselves straight pointed out occasional attraction or activity with the same sex in such a manner. As this poster did when discussing the supposedly all-encompassing advanced nature of the TOS computer, they were not allowing for any argument to sway them from their position, which in this particular case denying others' identities in favor of an absolutist mindset about James Kirk. I conceded I believe Kirk is straight, all evidence points to it, etc. But that that poster's assertion is not the fact, because no matter how much anyone wants Kirk to be 100% straight, there is no strict evidence saying Kirk is straight. Did I need to harp on it? Probably not.
Mr. Laser Beam then jumped in jokingly, I responded, and then you jumped in to... what exactly? Wonder why I got kind of annoyed? I am also not thinking you are a bigot, just to be clear.
You call me ideological. While I don't think I was hostile, I do not deny I have a definite ideological bend. I am super pro equity. I really do not give a shit about if anyone's favorite character might be something they do not want them to be. If Kirk came out as gay in a very special episode of Strange New Worlds, I would think, huh, that's stupid, and then laugh at the meltdowns of angry fans.
I told you exactly what. The arguments you're responding to are based on an expectation of consistency based on previous evidence on the show. Nothing more, nothing less. You're making those arguments out to be more than they are, and I'm calling you on it. That you're insisting on that is what earned you the "ideological" label now.
For myself, I'd find it surprising if Kirk were anything other than straight, based on the fact that we've only ever seen him with females. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if we learned that he experimented a bit.
This is pretty much my exact view.
See? I told you we agreed!
There is something... I don't know... comfortable about SNW, that I don't feel about the new Trek shows (even Lower Decks, which I really enjoy). Still... there's something that doesn't quite click yet, despite no single bad episode having being aired yet. I don't know what it is. Maybe just adjustment on my part. But it's on the right path.
I'm watching this episode for the second time now and for some reason the first time I watched it I thought it was going to be a flop until about halfway through when I really started to appreciate it and loved it by the end. On this watching I'm catching little lines and moments I missed the first time, or hit differently, and I think I've come to the conclusion that I didn't like it was much the first time because I saw the preview of the opening with Spock fighting himself and expected a serious episode examining the two halves of Spock and I kept expecting that to develop and it never did. Going into the second viewing knowing it's a comedy, light hearted episode i really do love it even more and this may be a 10 for me by the time this episode is over. I do love these characters in a way I haven't since DS9.
Yeah that's why I check zero previews and avoid even pictures of the episodes. I have no idea what I'm getting into each time.
