Jim Kirk seemed to have that mojo going for him: generally if he enquired if a woman would like to have sex with him the answer he got was "yes".
There is quite a lot of subjective perception in all of this. Abrams and company amped things up with Kirk in the new movies. Did we ever see Kirk
in bed with a woman in TOS? No. Some may argue that the only reason that we didn't was because of the network censors and what they would not have allowed. Well, that's a bit of a narrow interpretation, because in the original concept as submitted and in the Writer's Guide, nowhere could it be inferred that the character of Kirk was a womanizer or one who was interested in casual sexual relationships. Some may then toss it back that Roddenberry knew where he stood and what would cause an objection if he had included it. The problem with that is the fact that Gene was very conflicted. On the one hand, he wanted to be true to a relationship, but on the other he had urges that would not leave him alone. Who is to say, in his 'heart-of-hearts' what he really intended Kirk to be like? Might he have wanted, deep down, for Kirk to be free of those kinds of urges that he had? It's possible.
Any episode, movie, etc, is just bits and pieces of a character's life. If something is not shown onscreen, then it is completely open to subjective interpretation.
I was born 14 days after 'City' was first shown. TOS was a part of my life right from the beginning, because my older half-brothers watched it in its first run. I grew up with it.
Granted that I had parents who were very controlling, and I also had a very twisted version of Catholicism jammed down my throat from age 7 to age 10, TOS was still a very big influence on my life.
My take on Kirk's character has always been that he is a very deep-feeling person. His need to make a difference is why he chose to be a starship captain, but the nature of the position brings loneliness. He empathizes. He recognizes loneliness in others. He responds to it. It draws him.
Holding someone close and kissing does not necessarily mean that the next step is hopping into the sack. That is a very subjective assumption. People have a tendency to let their imaginations run wild. It gets them into a rut. (No pun intended.) It becomes a habit to interpret something the same way every time that they see something that seems similar. That's a mistake. It's a mistake that's also made by a lot of professionals in the field of psychology. They see X number of cases that
do follow the same pattern and pretty soon they lose the objectivity to accurately identify that case that comes along that is genuinely different from what they have seen up to that point.
My take on Kirk....at least in TOS form....is that he is the kind of deep-feeling person for whom casual sex would be contrary to his nature. From that interpretation, I can identify with him and respect the character. While I enjoy the new movies, I can't identify as much with how the character of Kirk is portrayed.. I can respect him as a human being who is different than TOS Kirk, but I don't have as much in common with him as I do with TOS Kirk as I subjectively chose to interpret him based on what was onscreen.
