The Real Role Model

[Lynx]

I'm just screwing with you. I don't think you sit in a basement pasting pictures of Jennifer Lien's head onto dolls whilst dressed as baby or anything.

Homosexuality should be a nothing issue for Star Trek. People should be lovin' who they're lovin'.

I'm off to cover myself in syrup and tweet Jeri Ryan.

Honestly, I never even thought about it.
I do prefer grown up women.

As a matter of fact, homosexuality don't bother me. I like both George Takei and Freddie Mercury, for example. Dr. Huang in "Law And Order SVU" is also a good character.

But I do live in a country where political correctness of all sorts has become a religion and where the slightest comment outside the restricted area is blown up and twisted into something that it was never meant to be from the beginning and where political correctness is a must everywhere, even in the most innocent TV program. I recently watched a series where a certain rather annoying character (definitely not a gay character, but a character with the "right opinions" about everything) was brought in just for the sake of adding such a character with "the right opinions". That annoyed me and I guess that infected my first post in this matter.

Anyway, it came out very rude and I apologize for it.

As for a coming Star trek series, it won't bother me if they bring in a gay character. The only thing which bothers me in that case is that I don't want to see any references to Kes in that series, I don't want to see character destruction and I don't want to see established Star Trek history being screwed up.

As for syrup, try maple syrup.

 

[TwoJakes]

Star Trek has always had trouble portraying a realistic command team dynamic.

I don't think that's true. The best team up was Kirk and Spock, Kirk needed Spock because Spock was knowledgeable in areas Kirk wasn't. At the same time Kirk had attributes that Spock lacked.

Chakotay (of whom I am a fan) brought nothing to a pairing with Janeway, because Janeway knew everything Chakotay did, and could do anything that Chakotay could, and then more on top of that. The writers made the mistake of attempting to make Janeway a uber-person.

Other than she could only be in one place at a time, Janeway largely didn't need anyone.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't think it's fair to accuse people of stealth homophobia because they don't want the inclusion of gay people for its own sake.

I think if Voyager had a gay character, it should be because the writers had a great idea for a gay character. I heard that the producers forbade them from having homosexuality in the show and I find that edict offensive. However I don't think it should ever be treated as the responsibility of art to meet any demographic quota.

The sexuality of the characters should derive from the writer's best vision, not politics or anything else.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I don't think it's fair to accuse people of stealth homophobia because they don't want the inclusion of gay people for its own sake.

Yes that is exactly what it is. The person might be unaware of it and think they are pretty forward thinking or whatever but many people do harbor homophobic views, unreconstructed ways of looking at the world that may be holdovers from their childhood or culture. And some people just know how to post on a forum to deflect from their true feelings.

Imagine for one minute we were talking about bi-racial couples. Imagine there had never been a bi-racial couple on Star Trek, that Buffy had done it nearly 20 years ago, that it was now commonplace on other tv shows of all ilks but that Star Trek had never had a bi-racial couple. And that when people posted "we need a captain in a bi-racial relationship!!" they were met with replies about Star Trek being a family friendly show or about not wanting political correctness shoved down our throats in Star Trek. Because that is exactly what happens every time the topic of gay characters in Star Trek comes up. People posting that would be exhibiting racism even if they refused to own the word themselves.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I don't think it's fair to accuse people of stealth homophobia because they don't want the inclusion of gay people for its own sake.

I think if Voyager had a gay character, it should be because the writers had a great idea for a gay character.

The sexuality of the characters should derive from the writer's best vision, not politics or anything else.

Yes, because all 8,000 heterosexual characters in Star Trek had compelling storytelling reasons for being straight, it wasn't just considered the way they were and not given a second thought most of the time.

Why can't a character just be gay and not have a bunch of hoops they have to jump through to justify it first? What compelling storytelling reason is required to just show two men holding hands at dinner in the crew lounge, or two women sharing a quarters? Complex character relationships are great and more than welcome, but too often saying that is used as a delaying tactic to keep pushing off what should be the easiest thing in the world to depict in an unobtrusive and inoffensive (to LGBT people, not people offended by the mere presence of gays, because they can piss off) manner.

It's the people who demand qualifiers for the appearance of gay characters who are being political, not the people who simply acknowledge that they exist and don't think it's a big deal for them to be included in the normal range of human sexuality and relationships among the crew.

If everyone has to walk on eggshells in order to avoid offending your (general you) delicate sensibilities by showing two people in a same-sex relationship onscreen, you're the one demanding political correctness, not the other way around. The other side is just reflecting reality.

 

[hux]

I won't be happy unless the captain has a cock in his mouth at all times.

"Mumba wun, mafe it fo."

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

Seriously?! Having 100% of all Star Trek romances heterosexual is acceptable but to get ONE gay romance in Star Trek and you say it's political correctness?

You are wrong and you are offensive. You know there are gay folk reading this bbs, do you think for one second how it feels to be gay and read a gay relationship on tv is about political correctness but a hetero one is not?

I trully think that the Trekkies are ready to support a LBGT relationships, wheter it is the capitain or a member of the crew. Now, the question is: will the producers and writers be able to create a gay or lesbian couple without screwing it at every opportunity like it often happens (Grey's Anatomy, 100, etc...).
In any case, as heterosexual, I'd be ready to support this storyline if it is well written.
(Lately, a friend of mine invited me to read a J/7 fan fiction. At first, I was very surprised because until now, I took their relationship rather a mother/daughter's one as lovers. However, the story was so well written that, even if I continue with the mother/daughter stuff (in particular because of age gap), I say why not to the idea of a same sex relationships. It could be nice and this situation could satisfy everybody, heterosexuals and gays -> hey after having raised the racial barrier, in the tour of the sexual barrier to be raised! )

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

And to directly answer to the thread, Kathryn Janeway and Benjamin Sisko can be considered as role models, though they were far from being the perfect capitains. These characters standed out in a world dominated by white men, in particular when it comes to the world of the science fiction and that's what make them exceptional!

 

[suarezguy]

I think Jeri Taylor and to an extent Rick Berman very much saw Janeway as a role model (Taylor perhaps as her alter ego) while Braga was more willing to try to present her with flaws but still quite admirable.

Chakotay is a fine character but (aside from that his decision to join forces was pretty much made off-screen in the pilot) a bit too often it seemed like his differences and conflicts with Janeway were artificially minimized, for a clear example "Alliances"-of course he also wasn't for outright trading technology but *something* could be done or considered; it felt like their attitudes were pretty similar rather than disagreements being constructive.