Gay Trek

Sup Forums talks a lot about changes in the media and their social effects: the ways in which certain groups attempt to change society's perceptions by legitimizing formerly taboo subjects in television, cinema and comics.

So, the new Star Trek is going to have a gay character, and the new Sulu in the movies is gay, and people complain that the gays are taking over the media. But, if we go back a bit, weren't Kirk and Spock already as much a couple as the campy 60's Batman and Robin? If that kind of blatant homoeroticism was already present in the 60's, what's new now that draws so much ire?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/hHgVE
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

"Every thread deserves at least one reply"
Bill Gates

Neither Kirk nor Spock were sexy enough.

Now, if you want a guy worthy of some homoerotic musings consider Apollo from the original Battlestar Galactica, especially in his gladiator outfit.

The problem is that straight producers, casting directors, writers, cameramen, financiers, and the like tend to pick unattractive men. The reason that cutie was chosen for Battlestar was because he happened to be there at the right time. They had dawdled for many months trying to figure out who to cast.

That's how a rare cute guy gets on TV in a big part. Otherwise you end up with guys who look like Alan Alda.

>The problem is that straight producers, casting directors, writers, cameramen, financiers, and the like tend to pick unattractive men. The reason that cutie was chosen for Battlestar was because he happened to be there at the right time. They had dawdled for many months trying to figure out who to cast.

Similarly, a cute guy was nearly cast in the part of Riker but they chose an average-looking actor instead (while casting buxom blonde Tasha and having a space cheerleader).

We got like two cute young guys in the entire run of Next Gen. The best was the guy from Lower Decks – who was already aging by then. A gay producer may have cast him as Riker instead of an average-looking guy.

Wasn't Tasha the lesbian on ST: New Generation? That would be another example of a non-straight character on Trek.

I don't even know what New Generation is. It must be some sort of fan-made thing.

If you meant NextGen consider that she was so thirsty for dick that she seduced a fully-functional male android.

If it's an android, does it have gender? No chromosomes, no sperm, no ability to actually mate with another creature: it's nothing more than a dildo, which isn't male, just the right size and shape to look male.

Actually user, the problem is that platonic closeness between two people can only ever be read with a sexual subtext now.

Satonic globalist plot to destroy the family system1!!1

Yeah because Plato's a fuken quack and his language had hundreds of words for Cucklish's singles
Star Trek is socialist. You think you know modern day left? They have replicators and no fiat money for crying out loud

This is that Plato who wrote the Symposium and Phaedrus about having sex with little boys, right? Again, nothing new under the sun: the non-normative sex has always been there in literature and media, but we seem to romanticize or sublimate past literature (like Plato) to pretend that it isn't talking about things we find taboo now, and then we express outrage when the taboos are broached in the same way in the newest media.

Good post

Plato's probably a better example than the original one I had with Star Trek, because Plato is openly talking about sexual relationships between young men and boys. The question is the same: why do we froth at the mouth about "edgy" new stories while ignoring the same content in older stories?

It's a staggering level of autism that has to reach to the etymology of a word to make a point. There was no implication that homosexuality didn't exist in the past. There wasn't an assumption of it any time you had two guys in the same room either.

...

Because the thing about nostalgia is nonody remembers the bad things
OP makes big to-do about a gay Sulu. Some guy says this is because nobody can worship Plato without going to sex. To gay sex? Therefore I shat on Plato and his ideas. Is there a problem here or

are you a female by any chance?

>nobody can worship Plato
Are you from French Canadian?

If there was an assumption of gay sex any time to guys were in the same room together, obviously every closeness between two men was being "read with a sexual subtext" as you said earlier. Things haven't changed.

define "little"

because I'm sensing the usual rank hyperbole

>If there was
I was writing in the present tense.

In fact Star Trek was against racism, sexism, nationalism and capitalism. You could find in the command bridge people of all races, sex and countries (the series was shot in the middle of the Cold War and Chekhov was a Soviet citizen, f.e). They didn't have money and people worked on "what they liked" with the needs covered by a system of abundance production.
More than communism, it reminds me of the Venus Project.

Oh well that changes everything

The Symposium doesn't end with Socrates going to the gym, but rather with him discussing comedy and tragedy with two poets long after everyone else has passed out. There is a mention of a gym earlier - Alcibiades invited Socrates to wrestle with him naked at the gym, hoping to get him into bed. You are (or whoever wrote that is) right about Socrates being a badass, though: there's a description of him in battle in the Symposium, where the enemy won't fight him because he looks far too eager for it.

>nobody can respect (worship because Mongs like you are so addicted to him) Plato by having a "Platonic" relationship
>are you French Canadian

No one brought up respect or worship of Plato. The word platonic was referring to the concept of non-sexual love, which is the current use of the term in that context, independent of Plato the man.
I asked if you were French Canadian because the only way that could fly over your head is if English wasn't your first language. Chinese then?

Don't confuse her short hairstyle for lesbianism.

That hairstyle was popular in the 80s. Madonna, Monica Seles... lots of women had short hair at the time.

There was absolutely nothing in her character or behavior that even hinted at her being gay. Zero. major characters, was Dr. Pulaski.

Im so fucking tired of talking on this board you guys never stop. You did the whole 3,461 year old woman thing of muh men only want each other's wangs narrative and I killed it. See ya

>there's a description of him in battle in the Symposium, where the enemy won't fight him because he looks far too eager for it.
That was just a euphemism for the fact he had a raging hard-on.

Yeah for sure. They laughed and mocked the same things we do

>muh men only want each other's wangs narrative
I actually said the exact opposite of that. Indian? Sikh maybe?

Nope.

This gay shit should be hidden. That's the difference, the current time this gay shit is not hidden...it's the antithesis.

Yes user. I said it was a problem that people read every non-sexual relationship between men as being ultimately sexual. That's the meaning of that sentence.
Maybe a more recent refugee?

What about the gay shit in Plato? Should that gay shit be hidden too?

was not expecting that

No you read things and say people of today are taking plato shit out of context. Well fuck plato altogether and i told you why 84 posts ago and you ignored that. If you're not blaming plato alone and only us then i find that automatically incorrect. Bleh

>If that kind of blatant homoeroticism was already present in the 60's

men where much more touchy-feely and emotional with each other back then, in the 80s-90s.

it wasn't considered "gay", just being bros.

to elaborate, this behavior in Trek was not gay.

it was normal male interaction with their bros.

>say people of today are taking plato shit out of context
I wasn't referring to Plato at all. That's just where that word comes from. You read into it the opposite meaning, based on what the word sounds like, but somehow have never heard the current usage of the term. First Nations?

Not so. Hollywood got into hot water during the 20s–30s for making films that were considered homoerotic.

This was clamped down on when religious zealots began to crusade against the "moral depravity" of Hollywood. Hollywood responded by censoring itself strongly to prevent the government from being even more severe.

One of the films that managed to get made before the crackdown was called "In Search of Beauty" — a 1930s Eugenics/Hitler Youth type American feature that had a naked hot guys' butts in locker room scene, among other things.

The flamboyant floor show may seem particularly gay to us today but Stalin's favorite film, Circus, had one of those as well and it's not a gay film at all. But, the nature of the floorshow in "In Search" is considerably more gay-oriented.

The notion that our culture didn't consider gayness is patently false. It's been an obsession for a long time. The thing that did change, though, is that male youth became a lot more obsessive about disclaiming homosexuality to their peer groups — resulting in a vast plummeting in the frequency of gay sex acts between teenage boys prior to them dating girls.

I precluded you like I said, now, what is it, 85 posts ago? Whereas Playdoughass would have 200 words for love. We have one. And that this is what trips us. Zionist? Like really who cares even if I misread you. You don't know how to argue

>starwars
>mad max- road warrior
>ghost busters.

anything with straight, o white male lead. is now BIGGOTING

Homoeroticism was not found in old Star Trek, it was and is found in faggots who watch it.

Two guys with no shirts who aren't paying much attention to the fact that they have no shirts is not gay shit. If Trekkies want to ship them, that's not really anyone else's fault.

But now it seems as though now there must always be a gay character and it must be mentioned in dialog that the character is gay. Not that it's ever relevant to anything in the story; it's just another sign of social decay.

That's a much more interesting perspective: does the outrage that we see today then result from a different understanding of emotion that we possess today?

Star Trek was communism. POL BTFO look how successful it is

So, is it the fact that homoeroticism is mentioned in dialogue that's so triggering now?

autism speaks

You mean successful like it made a bunch of money in syndication, movies, and merchandise? Yeah, so communist.

star trek is communist and it works you = btfo

fuck m8! You Fucking Herbert!

Kirk and spock and Robin and batman weren't gay though. The left is just trying to spin shows from the past that way because it helps their narrative.

They're just trying to convince people that there were gay characters in the past so that accepting it now seems easier to swallow to the people resisting it. It's almost like rewriting history without changing the physical evidence. They just change the narrative.

You see it a lot with many more recent charecters. Like several years ago they randomly decided to claim that Dumbledore was gay or that Samus from metroid was a tranny. It should bother people way more than it does, but people just accept it.

So, is the current trend in media, the open presentation of homosexuality, a return to a prior norm? If so, is having gay character in Trek actually conservative (reviving a norm of the past) instead of progressive (constantly moving towards a new goal)?

See you fags dont even get the refernce

It was actually called "Search for Beauty"

I just checked.

It's that it didn't exist anywhere except in the minds of deviants back then.
And now, it's not even homoeroticism... it's just jammed down your throat.

Well it keeps being pushed by (((them))) slowly. First they just have where it could be "suggested" and then they full on openly state a character is a fag. its all to normalize them in real society.

Think how much fag acceptance has gone up. Do you think they would get away with this shit in the 60s?

>So, is the current trend in media, the open presentation of homosexuality, a return to a prior norm? If so, is having gay character in Trek actually conservative (reviving a norm of the past) instead of progressive (constantly moving towards a new goal)?

One of the very first Hollywood films featured nothing but two men slow dancing to a violin player.

Ancient Japan, Ancient Mediterranean, Ancient Africa... lots of places had homosexuality as commonplace and open. In particular, military-oriented societies had a lot of pederastic relationships where a youth would become trained and taught by the teacher in exchange for providing him sex.

I guess. Communism always did rely on capitalism for any small successes it ever had.

taking a shower is not gay

False.

Gay men used to walk hand-in-hand in Berlin, prior to the rise of Hitler, for instance.

You need to watch the film and get back to me.

You also need to know about the cultural climate of America.

They still do in India.
You're telling me that's homoeroticism?
The only thing making that gay at all is the minds of deviants.

>he's scared of penises

I'll discount ancient Africa for the sake of not appearing to be trolling, but the fact that the ancient Mediterranean, especially the Greeks and Romans, had an openly homoerotic society seems worth pursuing. We claim that the western tradition derives from Greece and Rome, that we take democracy and the republican form of mixed government from the Greeks and Romans, but many now reject the practices of homosexuality that were common in the ancient world. Does that make us degenerate? Would a truly conservative Sup Forums, one that appreciates how based the Greeks and Romans were, also approve of the notion that men should find sexual satisfaction with other men?

>You need to watch the film and get back to me.

And pay attention to where the guy's eyes go when the main character is in the shower, something you can even see in those pix.

They're fictional characters. They can be written in any way people want to write them.

you are misunderstanding.

my point is that men in the 60s, and before that, behaved differently with their bros.

thats one of the reasons homosexuality was so resisted as poenly public, because it made bros feel uncomfortable acting like bros with their bros.

men where more physically and emotionally open with their male friends (no homo).

men where more secure in their masculinity, especially with each other and in society at large.

Gay couples walking hand-in-hand is homoerotic anywhere.

Conservative means upholding the status quo. It's a bias that's just as disreputable as embracing change just because it's new shiny.

I always felt Dax was an allegory for a male to female transgender person

>Conservative means upholding the status quo
no it means being retarted because it;s bull

Does conservativism mean upholding the status quo (currently Obama for the US, and thus electing Shillary) or returning to an older set of values that defined a superior age (making America great again)?

The physical openness was encouraged because of war.

The military specifically encouraged it. That's also why naked swimming was a thing for boys in the Midwest until as late as the 1970s — when it was quite clear that the draft was going to be replaced by the volunteer system.

It had nothing to do with society liking men to be affectionate and everything to do with keeping men docile while being sent to the slaughter.

Ancient militaries tended to be more honest about things and encouraged not only men to be all touchy with each other but actually have sex.

Misread your post. It's late and I missed that you said "gay" men held hands.
Straight men held hands in Germany and still do in India. And, still, the only things that make that gay are the imaginations of faggots and zealots.

The status quo is linked to short-term nostalgia, true.

But the fact is that it's quite short-term because the public has a very short memory.

i dont think it was intended that way, but yes, you can construe the result as an allegory for that.

its more an exploration of the idea of a multigenerational symbiote co-existing with a host in mutual benefit as an evolutionary solution in an alien culture.

>Straight men held hands in Germany and still do in India. And, still, the only things that make that gay are the imaginations of faggots and zealots.

It makes it gay when gay men fuck each other and kiss each other.

You're also conflating the issue of different societies' attitudes toward touching in general. British and Americans are much more hands-off than people in places like Latin America where people will touch when talking dozens of times.

British are the lowest in the world for touching and America was mainly founded by British religious exiles.

I think its clearly both at times, tbqh. The first episodes are all about, "Hes my bro, but now he's hot. Is it cool to think about him while I jerk off? Wtf I love Trump now"

>2 men are close to eachother so it must be a homo relationship
>what is fraternal comraderie
>REEEEEEEEE

This absolute level of degeneracy and retardness when it comes to male relationships is symptomatic of a society more preoccupied with their genitals than they are with worthwhile emotions.
Nothing gay between two dudes who care about one another and if you're a faggot and disagree you've lived a very sad life not I have a fraternal bond and you're probably going to become a trap

You're just butthurt about the fact that men touching each other can be sexual without the men being rounded up by cops for sport, like it was in the lame-ass 50s — the decade of extreme conformity, lead poisoning everywhere, and women being fucked over after having had a taste of freedom.

you are confusing homosexuality with male bonding.

homosexuality has always been discouraged in militaries, except in some examples like Alexander the Greats, where he had SEPARATE units of gay men.

Its for the same reason mixed units of men and women in the military are generally frowned upon. It complicates the relationships between troops in combat, and compromises their cooperation.

Homosexuality is a problem for male bonding, because it turns platonic gestures and feelings of caring/sharing/partnership into ones with sexual overtures.

For example, a group of men go swimming naked. If all are hetero, all are comfortable with that. But if one of the guys is gay, suddenly everyone becomes self-conscious that he is staring at their dick.

Do you understand what I am saying?

fgt

archive.is/hHgVE

>I think its clearly both at times

no, its only that way because you superimpose your own associations onto it.

notice that Dax doesnt take another male host, instead goes through two female hosts, and still retains the platonic male-male relationship of Sisko and the preceeding male Dax host.

If you want a trans-gender example from Trek, there is the episode with the trans aliens and Riker in TNG.

Fact is, also, that you can find historical articles that specifically cite Search for Beauty as being offensive to American Puritanical tastes, particularly for its homoerotic overtones.

A film like that would not pass the censorship mechanisms (like the Hayes Code) Hollywood implemented soon after it was made.

yeah but america was always crazy with censorship and seeing sin in everything, due to mass amounts of weird religious outcasts traveling to america. we can show tits on a billboard without it being considered sexual while you would probably have that banned right?

furthermore, the male dax host was a famous womanizer.

so the sexuality of the symbiote/host is defined by the hosts sexuality, not that of the symbiote, which further distances this from being an allegory for transgenderism as you project onto it.

male host was attracted to women, heterosexually. both female hosts are attracted to men, heterosexually.

there is the one episode where two female hosts with symbiotes that USED to be in a relationship meet, and there is sexual tension, but both are conflicted and confused because it is the MEMORY of the previous hosts that causes that attraction to the SYMBIOTE of the other, but not their current sexual orientation.

neither of the hosts are homosexual in that episode.

Do you want me to post pictures of gay couples in poses like that from way back?

because they do exist

I can also post pix of straight guys with each other in something similar — from today.

There is even apparently a trend of straight male athletes liking to cuddle in bed with other guys.

As I said before, the biggest change, in terms of anxiety over gayness, occurred among male youth – pubescents and teens. That is where the stigma about homosexuality, filtered down to them from adults in reaction to the new openness, has had the biggest chilling effect.

>its only that way because...

Okay, I guess there is nothing about a bunch of guys talking about how their friend is hot now that they are female which suggests transgenderism what-so-ever

Alexander was gay: he was fucking one of his lieutenants, Hephæstion. You're thinking of the Sacred Band of Thebes, which was a gay-only military unit that dominated the rest of Greece until the Macedonians defeated them.

Probably?

Janet Jackson's nipple was made into a bigger scandal by the media than the lies that were exposed that got us into Iraq (and the further lies while we were there).

it is not a structural or intended allegory.

you are superimposing your own interpretation and frame of reference onto it.

> I guess there is nothing about a bunch of guys talking about how their friend is hot now that they are female which suggests transgenderism what-so-ever

They are attracted to the hosts body, not the symbiote.

There is no transgenderism there.

The symbiote and the host are two distinct separate entities, co-existing.

Homosexuality was a big deal in Sparta, ancient France (Gaul), ancient Japan, pre-colonialism Africa, pre-colonialism Caribbean, etc. etc.

The British, more than any other force, spread homophobia around the world. I think they managed to create more of it even than Catholicism and Islam. But now that Islam is spreading it is influencing places like Africa, making cultures there even more homophobic.

Its irrelevant whether Alexander was gay or not.

The overwhelming majority of males, now and historically are not homosexual.

You cant "train" men to be homosexual, or not.
They either are, or aren't.

And no, Im not confusing it with anyone else.
Alexander did not discourage homosexuality (why would he, he was gay himself) but he did isolate those gay men into their own units as separate from hetero units.

actually going off those rumours he was more likely bi

>Homosexuality was a big deal in Sparta, ancient France (Gaul), ancient Japan, pre-colonialism Africa, pre-colonialism Caribbean, etc. etc.

Homosexuality has never been a "big" deal.

Only an estimated 5-10% of any given population are homosexual, if even that.

You're a rather tedious fellow, aren't you?

I watched that show in its first '70s reruns as a kid, loved it, have seen it many times since then though I have little interest in the sequels or films

Simply put: these characters were blatantly, unapologetically heterosexual. Kirk bedded every damn chick in outer space and Spock, when in the right mood, absolutely went for females.

They were not gay. They will never be gay. There is nothing homoerotic about them or their great friendship.

Deal with it.

>You cant "train" men to be homosexual, or not.
>They either are, or aren't.

Sexual behavior, though, is somewhat fluid.

Social conditions can, therefore, determine whether or not homosexual sex occurs between bisexuals and/or heterosexuals — regardless of how many gay men are around.

The Kinsey Scale has evidence beyond just what Kinsey gathered. The semen ingestion conformance rate among the Sambia (Papua New Guinea) falls very well in line with the scale.

Kinsey felt that the vast majority of males are mostly heterosexual but at least incidentally homosexual.

This is what causes so much confusion over orientation and behavior. People conflate the two but they're quite different depending on what sex acts you're talking about and what the social conditions are.

So, no, you can't convert anyone but you can entice them to have gay sex of some sort. Handjobs and receiving oral from a gay/bi are a lot different for a straight male than licking a guy's butt or making out with him.

The ancient Greeks commonly practiced a form of frot called "intracrural" intercourse. Basically a guy rubs his erection between the other guy's thighs and under his balls, facing him from the front. This less invasive form of gay sex probably was more palatable for the more straight types than anal penetration.

>its not structural or intended

I didnt realize you wrote for DS9

always ad hom to fall back on, eh?

you're thinking too simplistically. See my post about behavior vs orientation

You're protesting too much over rather flat characters in the first place.

There is more subtlety in the comics.

>They either are, or aren't.
Except most of the Greeks seem to have been both. Alexander had Hephæstion, but he also married and had a child. Most of the Greeks had male lovers before they married women. Boy-loving was a fundamental part of social mobility in Athens and a cornerstone of democracy (see here Plato's Symposium, Phædrus' speech, in which he claims that only tyrannies in Asia were opposed to the practice). Plutarch, in the life of Lycurgus, claims that it was part of a Spartan boy's education. Like it or not, the foundations of the western tradition clearly embrace both homosexuality and heterosexuality. Among the most based of the Romans, Hadrian, who brought civilization to its widest extent before the modern age, had his Antinous, and Julius Caesar bent over for Nicomedes. There's no way to divorce the satisfaction of man's lust for man from the most glorious parts of our heritage. So, why the outrage today?