Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman

Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28366]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 02:10

ToolPackinMama

Sex, And The Star Trek Woman
by Laura Goodwin

Star Trek was not a sexist show. It was in fact an anti-sexist show. In
TOS, women were respected, and well represented. We met female queens,
priestesses, soldiers, warriors, villains, and heroines. Virtually all
of the Star Trek women had careers, and were self-supporting. Working
women in the TOS universe are the norm, not the exception.

Sexist, no, sexy, yes! In TOS, women didn't have to choose between being
good but sexless, or sexy but bad. The heroines, queens and warriors
etc. of TOS were sexy, too, and that was OK.

It was beyond OK: it was revolutionary. You see, the sexiness of the
TOS women was meant to represent sexual liberation. In the future, the
women are as sexually free as the men are.

The relationship between the sexes was very interestingly portrayed in
the original Star Trek. This was an important part of Gene Roddenberry's
overall vision of a possible future society.

One complaint TOS critics voice about TOS is that they think the women's
uniforms are too sexy. The fact that the women's tunics are really short
and that the women of the TOS crew are therefore always showing lots o'
leg really bugs some people. Some people say TOS is "non-PC" because the
women look sexy to us. I'd like to speak to this.

First of all, short-short mini-dresses were the fashion rage at the time
TOS was being produced, so to the audience of the day, it wasn't that
shocking. I remember buying dresses for school that were so short that
they were sold with matching panties. Big whoop! What was shocking was
that panty-hose didn't come into common use until a year or two after
the hemlines rose. Us teen schoolgirls were begging our mothers for the
fancy new short-short panty girdles to hold our hose up, so we could
wear the new fashions without showing two inches of lace and spandex
below the hem. Boys reacted to the sight of this bit of lace the way
bulls react to red flags, and we were concerned about arousing them
unduly, especially during school hours.

THAT'S HOW OLD I AM!

In any case, the sexy clothes, etc. of the Star Trek women actually
represents sexual self-expression. Those women are unashamededly sexy,
for their own reasons, and they bloody well, ding-dong know what they
are doing. They are using their beauty and sexual power for their own
purposes.

Now look: people of the future, like people of any time and place you
can name, will think things are sexy or not sexy depending on how they
are socialized. It's pretty clear that TOS-era men and women are 100%
casual about the sight of women's bare legs, to such an extent that the
military issues these skimpy uniforms. The military of the future is as
likely to play a leadership role in fashion as they do now. It's safe to
assume that, to TOS-era people, bare legs for women is considered to be
a practical and conservative mode of dress, the way long skirts seemed
practical to women and men of the 1800's.

Have you ever tried walking up a flight of stairs in a long, full skirt?
No way is *that* practical for military women.

So why don't the women of TOS wear trousers? First of all, some do.
Second, trousers are primarily for men. The sexes still like to
distinguish themselves with their mode of dress in the 2200s, and
apparently they use skirts to do it.

Why should the women conceal their legs if it's not considered immodest
to display them? In tropical climates among simple native peoples, the
only difference between the men and women is men wear breechcloths and
women don't, or men and women wear their beads differently. In some
societies women can run around perfectly naked, and be considered
perfectly decent as they do so. If people can do that now, why not 200
years from now?

TOS women aboard the starship live in a cozy climate-controlled
environment, and they are surrounded by nothing but decent, respectful
men who are their buddies and comrades. What do they have to worry about?

I'll tell you what they worry about: they worry about how to make the
men look at them as if they are women, and not just buddies and
comrades. In "Miri" Yeoman Rand tearfully confesses to Kirk that she has
wanted him to look at her legs. What she means by this is she wants him
to see her as a woman, not just as a person. She has to ASK him to look:
to see her that way.

Apparently TOS men are so inured to the sight of women's bare legs that
they don't even think of them as sexy. What makes a TOS-era woman sexy
to their men, then, if displaying their gams doesn't do it?

Apparently TOS women have to be assertive. The men aboard the Enterprise
need situational and behavioral cues to release their inhibitions. They
need a party, or a romantic setting. They also need the women to behave
flirtatiously. If a woman behaves in a matter-of-fact fashion, the men
respond in kind, but if she flirts with her eyes and/or adopts an
inviting tone of voice and manner, the guys just light up and everything
changes.

It's interesting to note that a TOS man is careful to remain neutral
toward a woman if she's not specifically flirting with him.

The women of "Mudd's women" were outlandish mainly because they acted
flirtatiously with everybody (except Eve, who was a little more
conservative). As a consequence, guys were swooning all around them. I
KNOW there was a drug involved, but that same episode at the climax made
the point that it mostly was thanks to *attitude*, not the drug. The
drug made the women feel sexy, so they acted sexy, and the men responded
accordingly.

TOS men often immediately flirt back if they are flirted with, but not
always. They reserve the right to not flirt back. If a guy doesn't like
a girl "that way", or if he's not in the mood, then he doesn't flirt
back and that is the end of it. Unless the woman is a savage.

When the famous green chick, Marta, in "Whom Gods Destroy" was all over
Kirk, he did not flirt back. What was horrifying is that she didn't take
the hint. That's how you knew she was savage, or crazy, or (as it turned
out) both.

IMHO, in "City on the edge of forever", Kirk never made it past first
base with Edith Keeler because their two different courtship styles
clashed. She played cool and kept him at arm's length because, where she
comes from, women are passive and men are supposed to be the aggressors.
Kirk didn't push because, where he comes from, a guy doesn't move on a
lady until she gives him a clear sign that she expects him to. Neither
one of them were getting the cues they needed to give the other the
green light, so they were deadlocked, despite a fierce mutual attraction.

NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and with
Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for
him, and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or
undress that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what
matters. In each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace.

In the future depicted in Star Trek, it's the women who control the
sexual action. The few exceptions we see (example, Khan) are clearly
aberrant.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28371 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 02:54

urbanasphalt

Star Trek was a great show.
Mini-skirts are great as well.

You, on the other hand, are a worthless moron who is TROLLING a Trek
web-site.

You are not a published author.

Your posts here are not published writings.

You are a boring dullard.

Shut up already!

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28372 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 03:01

urbanasphalt

The idiot wrote:

"...NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and
with
Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for
him, and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or
undress that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what
matters. In each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace..."

***

The above is typical deluded BULLSHIT that the Vanilla Housewife has
been spouting for years. Selective use of "facts" to buttress an absurd
contention. To wit: Kirk kisses a woman - It means nothing. Kirk
glances at a man - It means everything.

Intellectaul dishonesty: That's the housewife's way.

She has been caught in her lies dozens of times.

And you people have allowed her to TROLL.

Shameful dolts!

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28380 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 03:48

Kweeg

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28381 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 03:57

Eric Nichols

> Now look: people of the future, like people of any time and place you
> can name, will think things are sexy or not sexy depending on how they
> are socialized. It's pretty clear that TOS-era men and women are 100%
> casual about the sight of women's bare legs, to such an extent that the
> military issues these skimpy uniforms. The military of the future is as
> likely to play a leadership role in fashion as they do now. It's safe to
> assume that, to TOS-era people, bare legs for women is considered to be
> a practical and conservative mode of dress, the way long skirts seemed
> practical to women and men of the 1800's.
>
> Have you ever tried walking up a flight of stairs in a long, full skirt?
> No way is *that* practical for military women.

What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek is
sexist, its only sexist towards the men.
Rise up my brothers, and cast off the shackles of feminine oppression!
Gotta go, my wife is calling.
--
Eric Nichols
Psalm 138:8

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28408 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 08:33

ToolPackinMama

Kweeg wrote:

> To bad the sexism crept into TNG. The 2 female characters that stayed around
> were the typically female "nurturers" being the Doctor and the Consoler. The
> only strong female character (Yar) was unfortunately cast poorly, Crosby
> couldn't act her way out of a paper bag on it's side, and unfortunately went
> nowhere.

Then, they killed her off. Stupid. It almost looked like they were
punishing her for being sexually active (with Data).

> The "Robin Hood" (Qpid) episode had the swashbuckling lads fighting while
> the 2 gals stood there acting all girly occasionally smashing pots/bottles
> on the unsuspecting bad guys heads. Give me a break.

Ditto.

> DS9 had strong female characters that were indeed equal to the males. And
> the less said about Voyager the better.

> Although I very much enjoyed TNG, it will never beat TOS or DS9 (or even
> season 4 of Ent)

I concur.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28412 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 08:41

ToolPackinMama

Eric Nichols wrote:
♦
> What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
> season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
> Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek is
> sexist, its only sexist towards the men.

> Rise up my brothers, and cast off the shackles of feminine oppression!
> Gotta go, my wife is calling.

LOL! :)

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28413 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 09:10

Kweeg

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117oo8ob2k81j12 [at] news.supernews.com...
> Kweeg wrote:
>
> > To bad the sexism crept into TNG. The 2 female characters that stayed
around
> > were the typically female "nurturers" being the Doctor and the Consoler.
The
> > only strong female character (Yar) was unfortunately cast poorly, Crosby
> > couldn't act her way out of a paper bag on it's side, and unfortunately
went
> > nowhere.
>
> Then, they killed her off. Stupid. It almost looked like they were
> punishing her for being sexually active (with Data).
<snip>

I don't think it was that insidious, just that Denise was a horrible
actress.......

--

Qa'pla
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28414 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 09:33

ToolPackinMama

Kweeg wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:117oo8ob2k81j12 [at] news.supernews.com...
>
>>Kweeg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To bad the sexism crept into TNG. The 2 female characters that stayed
>
> around
>
>>>were the typically female "nurturers" being the Doctor and the Consoler.
>
> The
>
>>>only strong female character (Yar) was unfortunately cast poorly, Crosby
>>>couldn't act her way out of a paper bag on it's side, and unfortunately
>
> went
>
>>>nowhere.
>>
>>Then, they killed her off. Stupid. It almost looked like they were
>>punishing her for being sexually active (with Data).
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't think it was that insidious, just that Denise was a horrible
> actress.......
>
FWIW, the killing of Tasha Yar is what turned me off about TNG. I
didn't care about any of those characters until Tasha and Data hooked up.

I thought, "Hooray! An interesting couple to care about!" THEN THEY
KILLED HER.

True story.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28420 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 13:07

Jaxtraw

"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:S7Vee.1258086$Xk.659644 [at] pd7tw3no...
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:427C078C.1020603 [at] lauragoodwin.org...
> > Sex, And The Star Trek Woman
> > by Laura Goodwin
> >
> >
> > Star Trek was not a sexist show. It was in fact an anti-sexist show. In
> > TOS, women were respected, and well represented. We met female queens,
> > priestesses, soldiers, warriors, villains, and heroines. Virtually all
> > of the Star Trek women had careers, and were self-supporting. Working
> > women in the TOS universe are the norm, not the exception.
> >
> > Sexist, no, sexy, yes! In TOS, women didn't have to choose between being
> > good but sexless, or sexy but bad. The heroines, queens and warriors
> > etc. of TOS were sexy, too, and that was OK.
> >
> > It was beyond OK: it was revolutionary. You see, the sexiness of the
> > TOS women was meant to represent sexual liberation. In the future, the
> > women are as sexually free as the men are.
> >
> > The relationship between the sexes was very interestingly portrayed in
> > the original Star Trek. This was an important part of Gene Roddenberry's
> > overall vision of a possible future society.
> <snip>
>
> To bad the sexism crept into TNG. The 2 female characters that stayed
around
> were the typically female "nurturers" being the Doctor and the Consoler.
The
> only strong female character (Yar) was unfortunately cast poorly, Crosby
> couldn't act her way out of a paper bag on it's side, and unfortunately
went
> nowhere.

I think it's explicable by the fact that TOS was a product of the
progressive 60s, TNG was conceived during the height of the conservative PC
maelstrom in the 1980s. 60s feminism had been a broad-based movement
fighting to minimise limitations upon women, as part of a general movement
to remove socially conservative values (male appearance changed too, from
regimented short hair and suits to a much more showy style (Swinging London!
Carnaby Street! etc)- the mantra was "do (and wear) what thou wilt"). By the
80s, sexist social authoritarians (e.g. Dworkin, Steinem et al) rather than
equalist social liberals (e.g. Paglia) had hijacked feminism with an agenda
committed to maintaining and emphasising conservative gender/sexual values-
they didn't want women to do as they wished; they wanted women (and men) to
do as they were told. By them.

As a result, what had started as a mood of increasing individual freedoms
resulted in a programme of rigorous behavioural control, which became known
as Political Correctness. Worse, this social programme was inherently
inconsistent, embodying social "rules" which were internally
self-contradictory, because the primary purpose was confusion. Anything
could be interpreted any number of ways, resulting in a kind of social
paralysis- and this meant that anybody trying to write in a PC way was
stymied. However a writer wrote a female character, they could be accused of
sexism- an passive female character is sexist ("hey, women aren't passive!")
but an assertive character could equally be accused of pandering to teenage
male fantasy stereotypes (nothing was more loathed than the teenage male,
that terrifying creature bulging with testosterone who must be emasculated
and made ashamed of himself at all cost).

So, the 60s woman, wearing a mini-skirt proudly and saying "yep, they're my
legs. Get *over* it. I ain't gonna hide myself" was converted into a sexist
icon. Women were shoved back under cover, their bodies again something they
must be ashamed of for fear of arousing male passions. And the negative
feedback from all this was that a bunch of guys creating a TV show had no
idea how to present women, especially assertive ones, without arousing the
ire of those who'd set themselves up as spokespersons *for* women. All you
could do was create characters who were so teeth-janglingly *nice* and
non-aggressive so as to avoid being accused of either making women "sex
objects" or agressive (pandering to male wank fantasies) or any of the other
pitfalls. Thus we just get nurturers (Troi, Crusher), because the nurturer
stereotype was moderately safe ground (one of the main PC stereotypes was
that women create and nurture, men just destroy). It took years before
anyone dared show a woman in Trek who could run an engineering department,
fly the ship, and disarm somebody holding a gun on the captain (as Uhura
did, 20 years before).

That, also, is why we got the silly "female character from a sexy society"
thing that worked so badly. They couldn't dare making her actually sexually
liberal (whatever that means anyway, what, does she like a lot of casual
sex, does she like it wild and kinky, does she stalk male crewmembers?
What?) without being un-PC and they didn't dare do that. So we ended up with
Troi, this "sexually progressive woman" who never seems to have sex with
anyone. Except Riker, in the 10th movie, through a sheet :)

Uhura, even limited by studio censorship of scripts, was a far more
progressive woman than any of the principals in TNG (typical of PC thinking,
they even had to give Yar an abuse back-story to "explain" her not being a
nurturer. By jove, Dworkin did a heck of a lot of harm.) "Take over
navigation, Uhura... ", not "Maybe you could give the navigator some
counselling, Deanna", that's what we want :)

I utterly agree with Laura's assessment, barring her analysis of Rand's "I
hope you'd look at my legs" line. IMV it's not that Kirk et al don't
appreciate nice legs- it's simply that as a straight-down-the-line
professional Kirk wouldn't dream of getting into a relationship which would
be awkward for a starship captain. In those early episodes when Rand was
still a primary character, the writers were writing in a sexual tension that
would never be resolved- IMV Kirk was attracted to Rand but held her at arms
length because it would be unproffesional to have a relationship with his
yeoman (more acceptable to dally with distant below-decks personnel such as
Helen Noel or that yeoman who gives him the neck massage at the start of
Shore Leave- note his discomfort when she displays that familiarity for all
to see on the Bridge). By the by, I think it's sad that TPTB had to get rid
of Grace Lee Whitney because of her personal problems- the Kirk/Rand
will-they/won't-they relationship would have been more interesting than the
later alien-female of the week stuff IMHO.

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28447 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 18:12

GeneK

"Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote...
(more acceptable to dally with distant below-decks personnel such as
> Helen Noel or that yeoman who gives him the neck massage at the start of
> Shore Leave- note his discomfort when she displays that familiarity for all
> to see on the Bridge)

He didn't even do that. It's clear from the dialog between Kirk and Noel,
both the real conversations and the ones she invented as part of the neural
neutralizer test, that there was no dallying (he danced with her at an Xmas
party and then talked about the stars, and in her invented conversation she
asks him, "what if *your* crew saw," which tells us that she probably was
not a member of the crew yet at that time, so the most that went on was
that he flirted a bit with someone he didn't know was going end up in his
crew). And he had no "familiarity" at all with Yeoman Mears, which was
the source of his discomfort on the bridge; even later, during scenes where
it would be perfectly suitable for him to do something as simple as address
her by her first name, he doesn't. The strongest arguement against any K/
with someone on the 1701 is Kirk's own character. He may look or flirt,
but he doesn't indulge in anything more because it would conflict with his
own slightly pathological dedication to maintaining his "command image."

GeneK

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28450 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 19:05

al019

Eric Nichols (sugarbearnichols [at] yahoo.com) wrote:
: > Now look: people of the future, like people of any time and place you
: > can name, will think things are sexy or not sexy depending on how they
: > are socialized. It's pretty clear that TOS-era men and women are 100%
: > casual about the sight of women's bare legs, to such an extent that the
: > military issues these skimpy uniforms. The military of the future is as
: > likely to play a leadership role in fashion as they do now. It's safe to
: > assume that, to TOS-era people, bare legs for women is considered to be
: > a practical and conservative mode of dress, the way long skirts seemed
: > practical to women and men of the 1800's.
: >
: > Have you ever tried walking up a flight of stairs in a long, full skirt?
: > No way is *that* practical for military women.

: What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
: season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
: Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek is
: sexist, its only sexist towards the men.
: Rise up my brothers, and cast off the shackles of feminine oppression!
: Gotta go, my wife is calling.

On that note, consider the TNG episode "Angel One." In one scene, Riker
has to don native male garb in order to speak with the leader of this
female dominent society. Note how his female crewmates snicker at him
when he appears wearing it! Now imagine the same scene with the sexes
reversed. The scene would be considered sexist!

Brad

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28451 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 19:07

al019

ToolPackinMama (laura [at] lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Kweeg wrote:
: > "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
: > news:117oo8ob2k81j12 [at] news.supernews.com...
: >
: >>Kweeg wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >>>To bad the sexism crept into TNG. The 2 female characters that stayed
: >
: > around
: >
: >>>were the typically female "nurturers" being the Doctor and the Consoler.
: >
: > The
: >
: >>>only strong female character (Yar) was unfortunately cast poorly, Crosby
: >>>couldn't act her way out of a paper bag on it's side, and unfortunately
: >
: > went
: >
: >>>nowhere.
: >>
: >>Then, they killed her off. Stupid. It almost looked like they were
: >>punishing her for being sexually active (with Data).
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > I don't think it was that insidious, just that Denise was a horrible
: > actress.......
: >
: FWIW, the killing of Tasha Yar is what turned me off about TNG. I
: didn't care about any of those characters until Tasha and Data hooked up.

This was in the second epside and only one scene of it at that. They
weren't really a couple. That was just the way they acted while under the
influence of a mind altering disease. Not Yar's "it never happened!" at
the end. Then nothing was ever made of it ever again (other than a brief
mention of the incident in "The Measure of a Man")

Brad

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28464 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 22:19

RageForTheMachine

> NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and with
> Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for
> him, and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or
> undress that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what
> matters. In each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace.
>

TPM,
In the post I made a few weeks ago about Kirk's sex life we both forgot
a third woman. The slave girl in Bread and Circuses. I just watched the
episode and the "Roman" leader said he allowed Kirk to act as a man in his
final hours of life. They clearly did it.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28465 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 22:25

RageForTheMachine

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:427C078C.1020603 [at] lauragoodwin.org...
> Sex, And The Star Trek Woman
> by Laura Goodwin
>
>
> Star Trek was not a sexist show. It was in fact an anti-sexist show. In
> TOS, women were respected, and well represented. We met female queens,
> priestesses, soldiers, warriors, villains, and heroines. Virtually all
> of the Star Trek women had careers, and were self-supporting. Working
> women in the TOS universe are the norm, not the exception.
>
> Sexist, no, sexy, yes! In TOS, women didn't have to choose between being
> good but sexless, or sexy but bad. The heroines, queens and warriors
> etc. of TOS were sexy, too, and that was OK.
>
> It was beyond OK: it was revolutionary. You see, the sexiness of the
> TOS women was meant to represent sexual liberation. In the future, the
> women are as sexually free as the men are.
>
> The relationship between the sexes was very interestingly portrayed in
> the original Star Trek. This was an important part of Gene Roddenberry's
> overall vision of a possible future society.
>
> One complaint TOS critics voice about TOS is that they think the women's
> uniforms are too sexy. The fact that the women's tunics are really short
> and that the women of the TOS crew are therefore always showing lots o'
> leg really bugs some people. Some people say TOS is "non-PC" because the
> women look sexy to us. I'd like to speak to this.
>
> First of all, short-short mini-dresses were the fashion rage at the time
> TOS was being produced, so to the audience of the day, it wasn't that
> shocking. I remember buying dresses for school that were so short that
> they were sold with matching panties. Big whoop! What was shocking was
> that panty-hose didn't come into common use until a year or two after
> the hemlines rose. Us teen schoolgirls were begging our mothers for the
> fancy new short-short panty girdles to hold our hose up, so we could
> wear the new fashions without showing two inches of lace and spandex
> below the hem. Boys reacted to the sight of this bit of lace the way
> bulls react to red flags, and we were concerned about arousing them
> unduly, especially during school hours.
>
> THAT'S HOW OLD I AM!
>
> In any case, the sexy clothes, etc. of the Star Trek women actually
> represents sexual self-expression. Those women are unashamededly sexy,
> for their own reasons, and they bloody well, ding-dong know what they
> are doing. They are using their beauty and sexual power for their own
> purposes.
>
> Now look: people of the future, like people of any time and place you
> can name, will think things are sexy or not sexy depending on how they
> are socialized. It's pretty clear that TOS-era men and women are 100%
> casual about the sight of women's bare legs, to such an extent that the
> military issues these skimpy uniforms. The military of the future is as
> likely to play a leadership role in fashion as they do now. It's safe to
> assume that, to TOS-era people, bare legs for women is considered to be
> a practical and conservative mode of dress, the way long skirts seemed
> practical to women and men of the 1800's.
>
> Have you ever tried walking up a flight of stairs in a long, full skirt?
> No way is *that* practical for military women.
>
> So why don't the women of TOS wear trousers? First of all, some do.
> Second, trousers are primarily for men. The sexes still like to
> distinguish themselves with their mode of dress in the 2200s, and
> apparently they use skirts to do it.
>
> Why should the women conceal their legs if it's not considered immodest
> to display them? In tropical climates among simple native peoples, the
> only difference between the men and women is men wear breechcloths and
> women don't, or men and women wear their beads differently. In some
> societies women can run around perfectly naked, and be considered
> perfectly decent as they do so. If people can do that now, why not 200
> years from now?
>
> TOS women aboard the starship live in a cozy climate-controlled
> environment, and they are surrounded by nothing but decent, respectful
> men who are their buddies and comrades. What do they have to worry about?
>
> I'll tell you what they worry about: they worry about how to make the
> men look at them as if they are women, and not just buddies and
> comrades. In "Miri" Yeoman Rand tearfully confesses to Kirk that she has
> wanted him to look at her legs. What she means by this is she wants him
> to see her as a woman, not just as a person. She has to ASK him to look:
> to see her that way.
>
> Apparently TOS men are so inured to the sight of women's bare legs that
> they don't even think of them as sexy. What makes a TOS-era woman sexy
> to their men, then, if displaying their gams doesn't do it?
>
> Apparently TOS women have to be assertive. The men aboard the Enterprise
> need situational and behavioral cues to release their inhibitions. They
> need a party, or a romantic setting. They also need the women to behave
> flirtatiously. If a woman behaves in a matter-of-fact fashion, the men
> respond in kind, but if she flirts with her eyes and/or adopts an
> inviting tone of voice and manner, the guys just light up and everything
> changes.
>
> It's interesting to note that a TOS man is careful to remain neutral
> toward a woman if she's not specifically flirting with him.
>
> The women of "Mudd's women" were outlandish mainly because they acted
> flirtatiously with everybody (except Eve, who was a little more
> conservative). As a consequence, guys were swooning all around them. I
> KNOW there was a drug involved, but that same episode at the climax made
> the point that it mostly was thanks to *attitude*, not the drug. The
> drug made the women feel sexy, so they acted sexy, and the men responded
> accordingly.
>
> TOS men often immediately flirt back if they are flirted with, but not
> always. They reserve the right to not flirt back. If a guy doesn't like
> a girl "that way", or if he's not in the mood, then he doesn't flirt
> back and that is the end of it. Unless the woman is a savage.
>
> When the famous green chick, Marta, in "Whom Gods Destroy" was all over
> Kirk, he did not flirt back. What was horrifying is that she didn't take
> the hint. That's how you knew she was savage, or crazy, or (as it turned
> out) both.
>
> IMHO, in "City on the edge of forever", Kirk never made it past first
> base with Edith Keeler because their two different courtship styles
> clashed. She played cool and kept him at arm's length because, where she
> comes from, women are passive and men are supposed to be the aggressors.
> Kirk didn't push because, where he comes from, a guy doesn't move on a
> lady until she gives him a clear sign that she expects him to. Neither
> one of them were getting the cues they needed to give the other the
> green light, so they were deadlocked, despite a fierce mutual attraction.
>
> NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and with
> Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for
> him, and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or
> undress that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what
> matters. In each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace.
>
> In the future depicted in Star Trek, it's the women who control the
> sexual action. The few exceptions we see (example, Khan) are clearly
> aberrant.

Pretty good argument, but I think in TOS there was also the clear
implication that a career woman is the exception and not the norm. I was
watching the Lights of Zetar the other day. Kirk and McCoy have a
conversation on the bridge where McCoy states that one day when Meera finds
the right man she will leave leave Star Fleet. If I recall right in TMP
McCoy also brushed aside the mention of Chapel being an MD now expecting her
to revert to being a nurse again. And of course the famous line from Janet
Lester about women not being allowed in th word of Starship captains.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28466 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 22:41

GeneK

"RageForTheMachine" <rageforthemachine [at] earthlink.net> wrote...
> In the post I made a few weeks ago about Kirk's sex life we both forgot
> a third woman. The slave girl in Bread and Circuses. I just watched the
> episode and the "Roman" leader said he allowed Kirk to act as a man in his
> final hours of life. They clearly did it.

It's certainly strongly implied. But Kirk was hardly in control of
the situation. Later in the episdoe, the proconsul suspects Kirk of
having persuaded Drusilla to steal a communicator for him, and given
the circumstances it would not be unreasonable to presume that Kirk
would have done so if he could have and his actions with her might
have had that motivation.

GeneK

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28467 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 22:50

GeneK

"RageForTheMachine" <rageforthemachine [at] earthlink.net> wrote...
>
> Pretty good argument, but I think in TOS there was also the clear
> implication that a career woman is the exception and not the norm. I was
> watching the Lights of Zetar the other day. Kirk and McCoy have a
> conversation on the bridge where McCoy states that one day when Meera finds
> the right man she will leave leave Star Fleet. If I recall right in TMP
> McCoy also brushed aside the mention of Chapel being an MD now expecting her
> to revert to being a nurse again. And of course the famous line from Janet
> Lester about women not being allowed in th word of Starship captains.

It could just be that by that time homemaking will no longer be stigmatized
and will be recognized as a legitimate career choice. Or that Starfleet still
maintains a restriction against couples serving aboard the same vessel
(which will clearly not be the case by TNG). And any statement made
by Lester has to be taken with a large amount of salt, since she was both
embittered against Kirk and Starfleet and a homicidal maniac.

You recall TMP incorrectly. McCoy did not expect Chapel to revert to
being a nurse, he intended to require it of her. Of course, she
didn't, as later in the film we see her giving care directions to another
person as a dr would.

GeneK

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28468 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:11

Jaxtraw

"GeneK" <gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:4S9fe.69874$NC6.64692 [at] newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> "RageForTheMachine" <rageforthemachine [at] earthlink.net> wrote...
> >
> > Pretty good argument, but I think in TOS there was also the clear
> > implication that a career woman is the exception and not the norm. I was
> > watching the Lights of Zetar the other day. Kirk and McCoy have a
> > conversation on the bridge where McCoy states that one day when Meera
finds
> > the right man she will leave leave Star Fleet. If I recall right in TMP
> > McCoy also brushed aside the mention of Chapel being an MD now expecting
her
> > to revert to being a nurse again. And of course the famous line from
Janet
> > Lester about women not being allowed in th word of Starship captains.
>
> It could just be that by that time homemaking will no longer be
stigmatized
> and will be recognized as a legitimate career choice. Or that Starfleet
still
> maintains a restriction against couples serving aboard the same vessel
> (which will clearly not be the case by TNG). And any statement made
> by Lester has to be taken with a large amount of salt, since she was both
> embittered against Kirk and Starfleet and a homicidal maniac.
>
> You recall TMP incorrectly. McCoy did not expect Chapel to revert to
> being a nurse, he intended to require it of her. Of course, she
> didn't, as later in the film we see her giving care directions to another
> person as a dr would.
>
> GeneK
>
>

I haven't compared the two shot for shot, but the Director's Cut appears to
me to have a lot more Chapel scenes in it- including her spouting some
medical Treknobabble. She's clearly an MD.

Does McCoy actually say he intends to have her revert to being a nurse? I
thought he said that what he *needed* was a good nurse (or some such thing),
which is rather different.

Mind you, there's a lot of needing in the movie. Kirk needs McCoy. He needs
Spock. It's hard to see why he needs McCoy really, especially at this short
notice, and he only gets Spock by chance. But he needs them anyway :)

Ian

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28469 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:14

ToolPackinMama

RageForTheMachine wrote:
>>NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and with
>>Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for
>>him, and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or
>>undress that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what
>>matters. In each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace.
>>
>
>
> TPM,
> In the post I made a few weeks ago about Kirk's sex life we both forgot
> a third woman. The slave girl in Bread and Circuses. I just watched the
> episode and the "Roman" leader said he allowed Kirk to act as a man in his
> final hours of life. They clearly did it.
>
>

I disagree. Wanna know why? Just ask.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28470 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:17

ToolPackinMama

RageForTheMachine wrote:

> Pretty good argument, but I think in TOS there was also the clear
> implication that a career woman is the exception and not the norm.

I can't imagine why you say that.

> I was
> watching the Lights of Zetar the other day. Kirk and McCoy have a
> conversation on the bridge where McCoy states that one day when Meera finds
> the right man she will leave leave Star Fleet.

I don't believe that means she'll never have any other job at all, ever
again.

> If I recall right in TMP
> McCoy also brushed aside the mention of Chapel being an MD now expecting her
> to revert to being a nurse again.

She still has a job though, yes?

> And of course the famous line from Janet
> Lester about women not being allowed in th word of Starship captains.

She still was employed though, yes?

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28471 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:20

GeneK

"Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:427d2e4c$0$93738$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> Does McCoy actually say he intends to have her revert to being a nurse? I
> thought he said that what he *needed* was a good nurse (or some such thing),
> which is rather different.

Yeah, that's what he says. And, of course, most of what he says in
that scene is all part of his rant about being there in the first place, so
you can probably chalk most of it up to him just being grumpy. My
guess is that the moment he walked into Sickbay and found himself
face-to-face with Chapel everything was fine. She hadn't had a part
in dragging him back.

GeneK

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28472 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:29

ToolPackinMama

GeneK wrote:
> "RageForTheMachine" <rageforthemachine [at] earthlink.net> wrote...
>
>> In the post I made a few weeks ago about Kirk's sex life we both forgot
>>a third woman. The slave girl in Bread and Circuses. I just watched the
>>episode and the "Roman" leader said he allowed Kirk to act as a man in his
>>final hours of life. They clearly did it.
>
>
> It's certainly strongly implied. But Kirk was hardly in control of
> the situation. Later in the episdoe, the proconsul suspects Kirk of
> having persuaded Drusilla to steal a communicator for him, and given
> the circumstances it would not be unreasonable to presume that Kirk
> would have done so if he could have and his actions with her might
> have had that motivation.

I can understand why guys in the audience like imagining having sex with
Drusuilla, but Kirk's not the kind of guy who would enjoy sex with
anyone under those circumstances. He's incarcerated and locked in a
room with his captor's servant. How stupid do you think he is?

Spock and McCoy are locked up somewhere else, Kirk doesn't know if they
are alive or dead, and he's just going to flop into bed with his
captor's slave and merrily have sex just because she's convenient? Do
we actually have any reason to believe that he is that kind of a guy?

Kirk was against the whole idea from the start. He stated flat out,
twice, that it wouldn't work. So then the woman gets all gooey and
swears she's only there to please him, and you think that Kirk just
decided to simply believe that, relax and enjoy a little sex with her,
when he's a captive, and his two best friends are captives, and Kirk's
been told he's slated for execution? Doesn't he have more important
things to think about?

There actually is no reason to believe that Kirk did have whoopee with
her just for fun. If anything, he would try to win her over to his
side, and make an ally of her. Why? Because he'd be trying to obtain
freedom for himself and his comrades, that's why.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28473 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:42

Snake

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117qcolr6nrug59 [at] news.supernews.com...
> I can understand why guys in the audience like imagining having sex with
> Drusuilla, but Kirk's not the kind of guy who would enjoy sex with anyone
> under those circumstances. He's incarcerated and locked in a room with
> his captor's servant. How stupid do you think he is?
>
> Spock and McCoy are locked up somewhere else, Kirk doesn't know if they
> are alive or dead, and he's just going to flop into bed with his captor's
> slave and merrily have sex just because she's convenient? Do we actually
> have any reason to believe that he is that kind of a guy?
>
> Kirk was against the whole idea from the start. He stated flat out,
> twice, that it wouldn't work. So then the woman gets all gooey and swears
> she's only there to please him, and you think that Kirk just decided to
> simply believe that, relax and enjoy a little sex with her, when he's a
> captive, and his two best friends are captives, and Kirk's been told he's
> slated for execution? Doesn't he have more important things to think
> about?
>
> There actually is no reason to believe that Kirk did have whoopee with her
> just for fun. If anything, he would try to win her over to his side, and
> make an ally of her. Why? Because he'd be trying to obtain freedom for
> himself and his comrades, that's why.

I very much like that argument. Very logical and keeping with Kirk's
personality.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28474 ]

Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:52

GeneK

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117qcolr6nrug59 [at] news.supernews.com...
> There actually is no reason to believe that Kirk did have whoopee with her just for fun.
> If anything, he would try to win her over to his side, and make an ally of her. Why?
> Because he'd be trying to obtain freedom for himself and his comrades, that's why.

Exactly. Try to get her to do something useful, or at
least see what she knows that could be exploited to that end.
His own lines in that scene indicate his thoughts that that's
what she's there to do to him in the first place.

GeneK

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28478 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 00:48

ToolPackinMama

Snake wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote

>>There actually is no reason to believe that Kirk did have whoopee with her
>>just for fun. If anything, he would try to win her over to his side, and
>>make an ally of her. Why? Because he'd be trying to obtain freedom for
>>himself and his comrades, that's why.
>
>
> I very much like that argument. Very logical and keeping with Kirk's
> personality.

Thank you.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28480 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 01:29

urbanasphalt

Kirk's personality: 1960s swashbuckling action adventure hero who had a
thing for the ladies. He got it on with PLENTY of women throughout the
galaxy. This is verifiable FACT in nearly every episode. This image of
Kirk is held by over 99% of TREK viewers.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28483 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 02:18

ToolPackinMama

GeneK wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:117qcolr6nrug59 [at] news.supernews.com...
>
>>There actually is no reason to believe that Kirk did have whoopee with her just for fun.
>>If anything, he would try to win her over to his side, and make an ally of her. Why?
>>Because he'd be trying to obtain freedom for himself and his comrades, that's why.
>
>
> Exactly. Try to get her to do something useful, or at
> least see what she knows that could be exploited to that end.
> His own lines in that scene indicate his thoughts that that's
> what she's there to do to him in the first place.

She's there to do a job. So is he. Oo, tres erotic. NOT.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28514 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 05:43

ToolPackinMama

Jaxtraw wrote:

> I think it's explicable by the fact that TOS was a product of the
> progressive 60s, TNG was conceived during the height of the conservative PC
> maelstrom in the 1980s. 60s feminism had been a broad-based movement
> fighting to minimise limitations upon women, as part of a general movement
> to remove socially conservative values (male appearance changed too, from
> regimented short hair and suits to a much more showy style (Swinging London!
> Carnaby Street! etc)- the mantra was "do (and wear) what thou wilt"). By the
> 80s, sexist social authoritarians (e.g. Dworkin, Steinem et al) rather than
> equalist social liberals (e.g. Paglia) had hijacked feminism with an agenda
> committed to maintaining and emphasising conservative gender/sexual values-
> they didn't want women to do as they wished; they wanted women (and men) to
> do as they were told. By them.

Dworkin particularly was a (IMHO) toxic nutcase. Feminism really took a
wrong turn when it suddenly wasn't OK for women to be sexy. I think TOS
had it right: it's good for women to be sexually equal and free.

I deplore the influence of sexual puritains, no matter what flag they
are waving. We don't need people telling us that sex is bad. It's
healthier to embrace our sexual nature, and learn to express our
sexuality in a responsible manner.

We can't stop being sexual creatures, so we might as well be sexual in a
mature and generous manner.

> So, the 60s woman, wearing a mini-skirt proudly and saying "yep, they're my
> legs. Get *over* it. I ain't gonna hide myself" was converted into a sexist
> icon.

Which is stupid and wrong. There's nothing wrong with being sexual and
sexy: it's all in how you use it.

> By jove, Dworkin did a heck of a lot of harm.

Yes, she did. Screw her and her devotees. I'm a feminist who upholds
woman's right to be actively sexual.

> I utterly agree with Laura's assessment

Thank you.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28523 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 07:00

rolletti

WOW!!! I'm impressed with your view on Sex and the Star Trek woman. Thanks
for the eye opener. I agree with the opinion you expresses.

Peace, and Long Life,
Rolletti

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:427C078C.1020603 [at] lauragoodwin.org...
> Sex, And The Star Trek Woman
> by Laura Goodwin
>
>
> Star Trek was not a sexist show. It was in fact an anti-sexist show. In
> TOS, women were respected, and well represented. We met female queens,
> priestesses, soldiers, warriors, villains, and heroines. Virtually all of
> the Star Trek women had careers, and were self-supporting. Working women
> in the TOS universe are the norm, not the exception.
>
> Sexist, no, sexy, yes! In TOS, women didn't have to choose between being
> good but sexless, or sexy but bad. The heroines, queens and warriors etc.
> of TOS were sexy, too, and that was OK.
>
> It was beyond OK: it was revolutionary. You see, the sexiness of the TOS
> women was meant to represent sexual liberation. In the future, the women
> are as sexually free as the men are.
>
> The relationship between the sexes was very interestingly portrayed in the
> original Star Trek. This was an important part of Gene Roddenberry's
> overall vision of a possible future society.
>
> One complaint TOS critics voice about TOS is that they think the women's
> uniforms are too sexy. The fact that the women's tunics are really short
> and that the women of the TOS crew are therefore always showing lots o'
> leg really bugs some people. Some people say TOS is "non-PC" because the
> women look sexy to us. I'd like to speak to this.
>
> First of all, short-short mini-dresses were the fashion rage at the time
> TOS was being produced, so to the audience of the day, it wasn't that
> shocking. I remember buying dresses for school that were so short that
> they were sold with matching panties. Big whoop! What was shocking was
> that panty-hose didn't come into common use until a year or two after the
> hemlines rose. Us teen schoolgirls were begging our mothers for the fancy
> new short-short panty girdles to hold our hose up, so we could wear the
> new fashions without showing two inches of lace and spandex below the hem.
> Boys reacted to the sight of this bit of lace the way bulls react to red
> flags, and we were concerned about arousing them unduly, especially during
> school hours.
>
> THAT'S HOW OLD I AM!
>
> In any case, the sexy clothes, etc. of the Star Trek women actually
> represents sexual self-expression. Those women are unashamededly sexy, for
> their own reasons, and they bloody well, ding-dong know what they are
> doing. They are using their beauty and sexual power for their own
> purposes.
>
> Now look: people of the future, like people of any time and place you can
> name, will think things are sexy or not sexy depending on how they are
> socialized. It's pretty clear that TOS-era men and women are 100% casual
> about the sight of women's bare legs, to such an extent that the military
> issues these skimpy uniforms. The military of the future is as likely to
> play a leadership role in fashion as they do now. It's safe to assume
> that, to TOS-era people, bare legs for women is considered to be a
> practical and conservative mode of dress, the way long skirts seemed
> practical to women and men of the 1800's.
>
> Have you ever tried walking up a flight of stairs in a long, full skirt?
> No way is *that* practical for military women.
>
> So why don't the women of TOS wear trousers? First of all, some do.
> Second, trousers are primarily for men. The sexes still like to
> distinguish themselves with their mode of dress in the 2200s, and
> apparently they use skirts to do it.
>
> Why should the women conceal their legs if it's not considered immodest to
> display them? In tropical climates among simple native peoples, the only
> difference between the men and women is men wear breechcloths and women
> don't, or men and women wear their beads differently. In some societies
> women can run around perfectly naked, and be considered perfectly decent
> as they do so. If people can do that now, why not 200 years from now?
>
> TOS women aboard the starship live in a cozy climate-controlled
> environment, and they are surrounded by nothing but decent, respectful men
> who are their buddies and comrades. What do they have to worry about?
>
> I'll tell you what they worry about: they worry about how to make the men
> look at them as if they are women, and not just buddies and comrades. In
> "Miri" Yeoman Rand tearfully confesses to Kirk that she has wanted him to
> look at her legs. What she means by this is she wants him to see her as a
> woman, not just as a person. She has to ASK him to look: to see her that
> way.
>
> Apparently TOS men are so inured to the sight of women's bare legs that
> they don't even think of them as sexy. What makes a TOS-era woman sexy to
> their men, then, if displaying their gams doesn't do it?
>
> Apparently TOS women have to be assertive. The men aboard the Enterprise
> need situational and behavioral cues to release their inhibitions. They
> need a party, or a romantic setting. They also need the women to behave
> flirtatiously. If a woman behaves in a matter-of-fact fashion, the men
> respond in kind, but if she flirts with her eyes and/or adopts an inviting
> tone of voice and manner, the guys just light up and everything changes.
>
> It's interesting to note that a TOS man is careful to remain neutral
> toward a woman if she's not specifically flirting with him.
>
> The women of "Mudd's women" were outlandish mainly because they acted
> flirtatiously with everybody (except Eve, who was a little more
> conservative). As a consequence, guys were swooning all around them. I
> KNOW there was a drug involved, but that same episode at the climax made
> the point that it mostly was thanks to *attitude*, not the drug. The drug
> made the women feel sexy, so they acted sexy, and the men responded
> accordingly.
>
> TOS men often immediately flirt back if they are flirted with, but not
> always. They reserve the right to not flirt back. If a guy doesn't like a
> girl "that way", or if he's not in the mood, then he doesn't flirt back
> and that is the end of it. Unless the woman is a savage.
>
> When the famous green chick, Marta, in "Whom Gods Destroy" was all over
> Kirk, he did not flirt back. What was horrifying is that she didn't take
> the hint. That's how you knew she was savage, or crazy, or (as it turned
> out) both.
>
> IMHO, in "City on the edge of forever", Kirk never made it past first base
> with Edith Keeler because their two different courtship styles clashed.
> She played cool and kept him at arm's length because, where she comes
> from, women are passive and men are supposed to be the aggressors. Kirk
> didn't push because, where he comes from, a guy doesn't move on a lady
> until she gives him a clear sign that she expects him to. Neither one of
> them were getting the cues they needed to give the other the green light,
> so they were deadlocked, despite a fierce mutual attraction.
>
> NOTE: The two times that Kirk has sex in TOS (with Miramanee, and with
> Deela), he is not the sexual aggressor. The situation was created for him,
> and he just reacts to it. It isn't the woman's state of dress or undress
> that matters. The situation, and the woman's attitude is what matters. In
> each case it's very clear the woman invited his embrace.
>
> In the future depicted in Star Trek, it's the women who control the sexual
> action. The few exceptions we see (example, Khan) are clearly aberrant.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28548 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 16:09

ToolPackinMama

rolletti [at] rolletti.com wrote:
> WOW!!! I'm impressed with your view on Sex and the Star Trek woman. Thanks
> for the eye opener. I agree with the opinion you expresses.
>
> Peace, and Long Life,
> Rolletti

Thanks for reading, and for the feedback, Rolletti.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28551 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 16:43

ToolPackinMama

Eric Nichols wrote:

> What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
> season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
> Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek is
> sexist, its only sexist towards the men.

A good argument could be made in favor of that view. To begin with, Jim
Kirk was obviously the primary sex-object in TOS. He showed more skin,
and on many more occasions that any woman ever did.

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28552 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 16:56

Snake

"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117s9d4qjpd27cd [at] news.supernews.com...
> Eric Nichols wrote:
>
>> What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
>> season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
>> Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek
>> is
>> sexist, its only sexist towards the men.
>
> A good argument could be made in favor of that view. To begin with, Jim
> Kirk was obviously the primary sex-object in TOS. He showed more skin,
> and on many more occasions that any woman ever did.

Well, showing /woman's/ skin was quite questionably taboo to 1960's
censors - you had to tread very lightly. Showing a nude male torso wasn't a
problem.

Ya gotta go where they let you! :P

Re: Revised: Sex, and the Star Trek woman [message #28556 ]

So, 08 Mai 2005 18:20

ToolPackinMama

Snake wrote:
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:117s9d4qjpd27cd [at] news.supernews.com...
>
>>Eric Nichols wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's really scary is all the men you see walking around in the first
>>>season of TNG wearing a skirt. What purpose did that serve? Or the shorts
>>>Picard was wearing when he went to Risa...it gives me the creeps. If Trek
>>>is
>>>sexist, its only sexist towards the men.
>>
>>A good argument could be made in favor of that view. To begin with, Jim
>>Kirk was obviously the primary sex-object in TOS. He showed more skin,
>>and on many more occasions that any woman ever did.
>
>
> Well, showing /woman's/ skin was quite questionably taboo to 1960's
> censors - you had to tread very lightly. Showing a nude male torso wasn't a
> problem.

They got his pants off of him too, more than once. :)

Vorheriges Thema:	Script of SNL Gays In Space skit #3 05/07/2005 renamed to Visitors From Another Planet
Nächstes Thema:	TrekUnited can suck my balls and chew on my big fat cock

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:54:12 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05402 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.