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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1)
REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58215] Do, 09 Juni 2005 18:52
ToolPackinMama  
Title: "Captain Kirk Loves Women"
Author: Laura Goodwin - http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us
Contact: kirksmyboy [at] allyourtrekarebelongto.us
Series: TOS
Part: 1/1
Rating: [PG]
Codes: K/f
Summary: Kirk, and women: the straight story :)
Feedback welcome - ~flamers are lamers~
================================



I'd much rather believe that Kirk is heterosexual than believe, as some
people seem to, that he's in love with his ship.

In Naked Time he said some poetic things about the ship, specifically he
said:

"This vessel...I give, she takes. She won't let me live my life, I've
got to live hers!"

That was a complaint, not a love song. He's bitching about not having
time to pursue a relationship. It's more like the ship is a crying
baby, not a loving wife. He spends so much time taking care of ship
business he has no time for fun.

If he felt married to the ship, his life would be hers, it wouldn't be
hers vs. mine. When you are married, you are one (ideally).

And...

"Now I know why IT's called *she*!"

Indicating quite clearly that he knows that "she" is an _it_.

Harry Mudd said starship captains are married to their ships to Eve
McHuron in Mudd's Women. Of course, we are given reason to question his
wisdom. In Elaan of Troyius somebody says of Kirk that the Enterprise
infected him before the Dolman did. Again, Kirk himself did not tell
anyone that he considered himself to be married to the ship. It's
pretty clear that he considers himself to be a single gentleman who
simply has a demanding job that doesn't give him much free time.

Kirk loves women. He likes them as friends and comrades, and he likes
them for sex. In TOS he's young, hot-blooded and virile. Obviously he
feels sexual urges. The opposite sex is attractive to him, and he's
plainly not afraid of women. He is often prevented by circumstances
from following through, but it's never because he himself can't cope.

As he said in Naked Time:

"..(a) woman...to touch, to hold...beach to walk on, a few days...no
braid on my shoulder!"

He needs conducive circumstances, and he wants a real flesh and blood
person at his side, not (as Spock might say) "a mechanical contrivance"
like the starship.

Kirk could have had his pick if hundreds of female androids in I, Mudd,
but he quite unequivocally rejected ALL of them.

Captain Kirk is picky about women. He doesn't want some fancy city-lady
painted glamor doll. He prefers women that are wholesome, naturally
pretty, intelligent, and respectable like Miramanee and Edith Keeler.

Kirk is particular to choose a beautiful woman. He's old-fashioned
about a lot of things, and one of his beliefs seems to be that the bride
should be prettier than the groom. Maybe the real reason he hasn't
married is it's hard to find a woman who is prettier than himself. ;)

When Kirk has his little beach-walking fantasy he imagines himself with
a woman: not a harem. Kirk is solidly consistent in one thing: whenever
he talks aloud about how he thinks things should be between a man and a
woman, be clearly believes a relationship should be a mutually enjoyable
and beneficial partnership. Kirk wants to take time to share things
like walking and talking together. Walking on the beach, talking about
the stars...sharing happy thoughts and wholesome activities is how he
likes to court a woman. We've seen him do it, more than once.

Kirk's a romantic. Love is something that is sacred to him. He always
talks of Love with a capital L as if it's what Life with a capital L is
all about. He is certainly not a reckless and selfish playboy. In
Charlie X, he gives Charlie some very mature advice about love. Here's
the main part of their conversation:

Kirk: "Yeoman Rand is a woman..."

Charlie: "Oh, I won't hit her like that anymore!"

Kirk: "No, there's more to it than that."

Charlie: (Frustrated) "Everything I do or say is wrong! (etc.)"

Kirk: (Gently) "...There's nothing wrong with you that hasn't gone
wrong with every human male since the model first came out."

Charlie: (desperately) "What if you care for someone? What do you do!?"

Kirk: (Sincerely) "You go slow. Give it a while. You be gentle. I
mean, it's not a one-way street you know...how you feel and that's all.
It's how the girl feels too! Don't press, Charlie. If the girl feels
anything for you at all, you'll know it. You understand, Charlie?"

Charlie: "You don't think that Janice...you...she could love me!"

Kirk: "She's not the girl, Charlie. The years are wrong, for one
thing. And there are other things."

Charlie: "She can."

Kirk: (Simply) "No, Charlie."

Charlie: (Freaking out) "What if I did what you said!? If I was gentle!?"

Kirk: (Firmly) "Charlie, there are a million things you can have in
this universe and a million things that you can't have. It's no fun
facing that, but that's the way things are!"

Charlie: (Miserably) "Then, what am I gonna do?"

Kirk: (Gently) "Hang on tight and survive. Everybody does."

Charlie: "You don't!"

Kirk: "Everybody, Charlie. Me too."

[NOTE: Get this! Kirk knows about going slow and gentle, about
respecting a woman's wishes, about mutuality in love, about gracefully
accepting rejection, about courage in the face of loneliness. Who knew?]

I have some very solid ideas about what kind of a lover Kirk would be to
a woman, and he isn't the type who would just use a woman. He'd be a
partner in bed. He'd do his best to make sure the woman had a good
time. Whenever we've seen him playing Romeo, he's always tender,
considerate, and playful. He seems to enjoy playing to the woman's
fantasies. He shows curiosity about his ladyfriend's interests, and
seems to like doing whatever pleases her. He makes the effort to find
out what a woman wants, apparently so he can make an effective effort at
giving her what she wants.

Generally, Kirk favors the idea of male/female equality. He agreed with
Dr. Lester that sexist policies were wrong, and he assured Lt. Moreno
that (as far as he was concerned) she could become anything that she
wanted to be. Kirk respects women effortlessly, like it's second nature
to him. He is absolutely not sexist.

We can tell a lot about what kind of lover Kirk is with women by looking
at the two women in TOS who meant the most to him. He was infatuated
with Edith Keeler, and he was certainly crazy nutty in love with his
native wife, Miramanee. Those are two women he pretty clearly was
serious about.

With Edith Keeler he bent over backwards to try to please her. She
wanted a clean basement, she got one. She wanted to see a movie, they
were on their way to a movie. When they talked, they talked about her
favorite subjects. He did what she liked to do. He did not force
himself upon her. He pulled the reins in tight on himself and let her
set the pace.

Obviously if he's Gay he's in no rush to get into her pants. BUT if
he's NOT GAY, if he's straight, then what does it say about him? I'll
tell you what it says. It says he's very savvy about women, and he
probably became savvy about them because he loves and respects them.

When he had amnesia and didn't know who or what he was, Miramanee came
along and she guided him. He let her. He did not ever act uppity and
superior with her. He was gentle and mild mannered with her. He did
not force himself upon her. They married because she wanted to. They
both wanted to. Kir-ock had ~no complaints~.

They apparently had a very satisfying married life. Miramanee was
thrilled with Kir-ock as a husband. When we saw them together as a
couple, their relationship was obviously tender, playful and mutually
pleasing. He did not lord it over her, even though he was supposedly a
"God". He treated her with respect and obvious affection. They seemed
happy with their sexual relationship, and clearly it was a complete
relationship, because she became pregnant.

Kirk always showed great respect to his women shipmates, and to the
women he met on his travels. Love is a serious matter to him, he was
not casual with women. He didn't like being treated in a casual manner
himself, either. He wasn't thrilled to find Eve sluttishly waiting for
him in his bed in Mudd's Women: He was glad to get rid of her. He
didn't like that green chick pawing him in Whom Gods Destroy: he
tolerated it because he was in captivity and had little choice. He
needed a lot of encouragement from Drusilla in Bread And Circuses: he
didn't just go, "Hoorah! You're my slave for the night! C'Mere wench!".

Kirk needs to feel wanted, and that means a woman has to encourage him a
lot before he really will make a move. In most cases, it's the woman
who makes the first move.

Kirk usually lets women take the lead and set the tone. Lenore Karidian
(for example) was unequivocal about wanting him, and she was smart about
how to seduce him. She appealed to his imagination, evoking the romance
of legendary couples of history and fiction. That was obviously very
appealing to the idealistic Jim Kirk. He liked the idea of playing
Caesar and Cleopatra with her - which is a huge step above simply
playing house.

Kirk's like that: he thinks big! He's got high ideals and lofty goals.
The perfect partner for him would be a goddesslike woman who is
exemplary in every way. Kirk craves the love of a woman who is
beautiful, super-smart, and frankly, who IS somebody. Kirk is a bit of
a star-fucker: if a woman is a queen, a high priestess, a social leader,
a kickass lawyer, a kickass scientist, a kickass doctor, he likes that!
He demands it, in fact. That's what he liked about Reyna Kepec: she was
beautiful, super-smart, and was virtually the queen of her lonely world.
Plus, she clearly singled him out, and urgently encouraged him. It
would have been ungallant of him to refuse her!

In the second ST movie we met Carol Marcus, a brilliant genius of a
woman who was also the mother of Kirk's son, David. She was a very
strange woman who for reasons unknown prevented Kirk and David from
having any relationship. Kirk was very hurt by this, but he respected
her wishes. She wanted him to stay away, and he stayed away. What does
this say about Kirk? It says he respects women's wishes, even when
their wishes are nutty. That's what it says. She also fits the
pattern: good-lookin' super-smart, a super-star in her field of
endeavor. That's clearly what Kirk looks for in a woman.

He needs a woman to be respectable: someone whom he can admire; someone
who inspires him. Women who measure up to Kirk's stringent standards are
rare, which is a big reason why he stayed single. I'm sure if he'd
found the right combination in the right woman under the right
circumstances that he would have happily opted for marriage, and he
probably would have made a fantastic husband.

What to say to people who insist that James Kirk was a love 'em and
leave 'em guy? Say. "It's not so!" Kirk ("Kir-ock") did not leave
Miramanee, she left him (was KILLED). Kirk loved Edith Keeler (City on
the Edge of Forever), and she got KILLED. Reyna was really exquisite,
too bad she was just an android. You can't really say he'd be leaving a
woman behind in a case like that. Besides, he didn't leave her: She left
him (DIED).

Drusilla (Bread and Circuses), a slave, was locked in a room with Jim
while he was imprisoned, and he had no say about whether either one of
them could come or go. She had no choice either: she had been ordered to
entertain him. When he left the planet, he wasn't leaving her, he was
escaping captivity and promised death. What else would you expect him
to do? It wasn't like they had a relationship. It wasn't like he ever
cared for her.

In Wink of an Eye, Queen Deela (Kirk's kidnapper) was an enemy, not a
lover. Since he was there against his will she certainly had no right to
hang on to him. That's not leaving, that's called escaping, and it's the
right thing to do in a case like that.

The Dolman Elaan _left him_, because she had to. He had to let her.

We know of only *one* woman from his past who bore him any ill-will: Dr.
Janice Lester, the one who stole his body in Turnabout Intruder. In any
case, them breaking up seems to have been a mutual decision.

There is not one clear cut case of simple abandonment, unless you count
Khan's girlfriend whom Kirk marooned with him after the traitorous woman
helped Khan to rob Kirk of his command and almost cost the whole crew
their lives. I'd say in her case, she asked for it! But she was never
Kirk's girlfriend.

FWIW, it's established in Star Trek two: Wrath of Khan that he left
Carol Marcus because she asked him to. Their careers came between them.
I have known enough mothers who are single by choice that I think this
is perfectly believable.

Most of the women from his past who turned up seemed to have fond
feelings still for him, so obviously, no resentment. Dr. Wallace pretty
urgently wanted to simply pick up where she and Jim had left off years
before, but in her case he pretty clearly didn't want to. If he wanted
an easy lay, he could have had one in that episode, but he opted not to.

There were many situations where women came on to Jim and offered him an
easy lay, and he pretty much never actually went along with it. Eve got
nowhere with Kirk in Mudd's Women, although she did everything she could
think of to be attractive, to be convenient, to encourage him. Kirk
wasn't having any.

Why *do* so many people think Kirk was a playboy? He used seductive
methods on a limited number of enemy women - but it was not him honestly
trying to get laid, it was him using his own sex-appeal as a weapon, to
try to accomplish something that was duty-related. Two telepaths,
Sylvia (Catspaw) and Dr. Jones (Is there in truth no beauty?) both
realized he was doing that, and called him on it... so it didn't always
work. In the case of Queen Deela (Wink of an eye) it totally played
into her plan to use him for stud service, so, even though she knew for
certain that he was being insincere, she didn't care.

In TOS we see Kirk love and lose two women: Edith Keeler, and Miramanee.
In both cases it was literally until death did them part. What did these
two women have in common?

Both were brunettes Both held leadership positions within their spheres
of influence. Both were from primitive cultures. Both were very pretty.
Both were ladies, not sluts.

It's been established as canon that Kirk likes antiques and has romantic
ideas about times past. Is it possible he longs for the days when a guy
could slice up his enemies with a sword, and not only would nobody say
boo, but they might offer praise?

If Kirk is ever to be happily married, it's clear to me he'd marry not
just the woman, but her whole way of life, preferably a more primitive
one. She'd have to be in his eyes not only physically beautiful, but an
exciting and utterly respectable woman.

He would have to *believe* in her. He would look for ways to impress her
(and to drive away her other suitors). To win her love he would do
anything, and the tougher the better. He would attempt to bowl her over
with sheer audacity and the fervor of his passion, but if she's smart
like Edith Keeler, she'll play it cool and keep him at arm's length as
long as possible.

She would be his goddess of love incarnate, and he would be her knight.
He would fiercely defend her and their children, *and* all their friends
and neighbors from any threat of harm. In peacetime, there would have to
be lots of contests and sporting events he could compete in so he could
soothe his hyperactive masculine nerves, and also show off for her.

I also think Jim Kirk would make an involved and affectionate father, of
the "benign despot" type. He'd play with the kids and teach them things.
He'd love to tell them stories, and these would be moral tales intended
to illustrate the importance of the virtues. He's no Mr. Rogers, though:
he'd have to be in the mood for the little ones, and wouldn't mind
leaving the primary childcare tasks to his wife. The kids would be
expected to just succumb to his authority. Discipline, if needed, would
occur instantly, and would leave a lasting impression. There would be a
big fuss when the kids did well, with liberal hugs and kisses and lots
of happy bragging about his offspring. Jim's an accomplished
manipulator, and with quick forgiveness for mistakes and a long memory
for points of pride would convince his brood to strive for excellence,
and they'd probably break their hearts in half trying to please him and
meet his idealistic expectations.

It's been shown that if Jim Kirk were to win the hand of a queen or high
priestess of a primitive population, and if by marrying her he assumed
responsibility over the whole tribe (like what happened in Paradise
Syndrome), that *that* would be very much to his liking. Being
progressive in spirit and large-minded, he would eventually lead his
people into the twenty third century, but would be careful to preserve
the rough elements of his adopted culture that he found most attractive.

All speculation aside, Kirk certainly is no sexist, selfish, horndog
playboy who porked all of the chicks. That's for SURE. So-called fans
who insist that James Kirk was a love 'em and leave 'em guy betray their
ignorance.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58234 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 00:42
TBSFIST  
(copied from previous post but still relevent to the topic at hand)

Interesting. Whereas in the past I felt that you (Laura Goodwin) were
trying your hand at a bit of twisted satire directed towards the TOS
community, I now see that you actually believe that Captain Kirk and
his First Officer Spock were homosexual lovers.

And the writers of the show inserted this gay love into the series for
what reason?

This seems to me to be a classic example of paradigm bias. There is no
real evidence in the show for such a relationship as you suggest,
although there is great evidence for a close friendship between these
two men.

There is always the danger of reading ones own meaning into whatever
the subject or topic may be. There is no lack of voices ready proclaim
some bizarre, controversial fact with a weak and unsupported basis in
reality. Most believe they are right and that those in opposition
suffer from some psychological blindness to the real truth.

One great danger in your assertion is that if two men exhibit such a
devoted personal bond, they must be homosexual lovers. This would make
any heterosexual male friends wary and skittish around people like you
ready to brand them lovers because they aren't aloof and distant.

I think the real question is not were Kirk and Spock gay lovers.

The real question is why do you need for them to be?

P.S. - The answer may lie at www.lauragoodwin.org. I have no objections

to this type of behavior, as long as she can separate her sexual
philosophy from Star Trek. Alas, it seems that she cannot as evidenced
by her prolific posts to this newsgroup on the topic, desperately
trying to prove her point.



(and later in the afore mentioned post)

Again, could not two men who are close personal friends act in EXACTLY
the same way?

Wait a minute; I want to join in. Let me see - Starsky & Hutch = gay
lovers.
Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn = gay lovers.
Abbott & Costello = gay lovers.
McDonnell & Douglas = gay lovers.
Bing Crosby & Bob Hope = gay lovers.
Siskel & Ebert = gay lovers.
Barnum & Bailey = gay lovers.
Cheech Marin & Tommy Chong = gay lovers.
Watson & Crick = gay lovers.
Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson = gay lovers.
Barnes & Noble = gay lovers.
Felix Unger & Oscar Madison = gay lovers.
Harley & Davidson = gay lovers.
Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid = gay lovers.
Sears & Roebuck = gay lovers.
Andy Taylor & Barney Fife = gay lovers.
Simon & Garfunkle = gay lovers.
Lone Ranger & Tonto = gay lovers.
Ralph Kramden & Ed Norton = gay lovers.
Simon & Schuster = gay lovers.
Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis = gay lovers.
Levi & Strauss = gay lovers.
Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy = gay lovers.
Smith & Wesson = gay lovers.
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels = gay lovers.
Amos & Andy = gay lovers.
Charles Stewart Rolls & Frederick Henry Royce = gay lovers.
Lewis & Clark = gay lovers.

All of the above were sexual pairs and I can prove it! Some extremely
selective photos or quotes and some out of context commentary and you
will be convinced. Right? RIGHT?

This woman has had too much license in this newsgroup. Like religious
and political extremists, her sexual extremism has bled over to other
areas of thought including Star Trek. Just like them, she has twisted
whatever facts she can to suit her cause and downplayed the obvious.
She is not at all affected that most find her allegation preposterous,
because her skewed perception doesn't have to coincide with reality.
Surrounded by submissive males, including her husband, she is
apparently never told that occasionally she can be wrong. Dead wrong.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58244 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 03:53
phyphor  
On 9 Jun 2005 15:42:54 -0700, "TBSFIST"
<oncedarknessnowlight [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

>(copied from previous post but still relevent to the topic at hand)
>
>Interesting. Whereas in the past I felt that you (Laura Goodwin) were
>trying your hand at a bit of twisted satire directed towards the TOS
>community, I now see that you actually believe that Captain Kirk and
>his First Officer Spock were homosexual lovers.
>
>And the writers of the show inserted this gay love into the series for
>what reason?
>
>This seems to me to be a classic example of paradigm bias. There is no
>real evidence in the show for such a relationship as you suggest,
>although there is great evidence for a close friendship between these
>two men.
>
>There is always the danger of reading ones own meaning into whatever
>the subject or topic may be. There is no lack of voices ready proclaim
>some bizarre, controversial fact with a weak and unsupported basis in
>reality. Most believe they are right and that those in opposition
>suffer from some psychological blindness to the real truth.
>
>One great danger in your assertion is that if two men exhibit such a
>devoted personal bond, they must be homosexual lovers. This would make
>any heterosexual male friends wary and skittish around people like you
>ready to brand them lovers because they aren't aloof and distant.
>
>I think the real question is not were Kirk and Spock gay lovers.
>
>The real question is why do you need for them to be?
>
>P.S. - The answer may lie at www.lauragoodwin.org. I have no objections
>
>to this type of behavior, as long as she can separate her sexual
>philosophy from Star Trek. Alas, it seems that she cannot as evidenced
>by her prolific posts to this newsgroup on the topic, desperately
>trying to prove her point.
>
>
>
>(and later in the afore mentioned post)
>
>Again, could not two men who are close personal friends act in EXACTLY
>the same way?
>
>Wait a minute; I want to join in. Let me see - Starsky & Hutch = gay
>lovers.
>Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn = gay lovers.
>Abbott & Costello = gay lovers.
>McDonnell & Douglas = gay lovers.
>Bing Crosby & Bob Hope = gay lovers.
>Siskel & Ebert = gay lovers.
>Barnum & Bailey = gay lovers.
>Cheech Marin & Tommy Chong = gay lovers.
>Watson & Crick = gay lovers.
>Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson = gay lovers.
>Barnes & Noble = gay lovers.
>Felix Unger & Oscar Madison = gay lovers.
>Harley & Davidson = gay lovers.
>Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid = gay lovers.
>Sears & Roebuck = gay lovers.
>Andy Taylor & Barney Fife = gay lovers.
>Simon & Garfunkle = gay lovers.
>Lone Ranger & Tonto = gay lovers.
>Ralph Kramden & Ed Norton = gay lovers.
>Simon & Schuster = gay lovers.
>Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis = gay lovers.
>Levi & Strauss = gay lovers.
>Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy = gay lovers.
>Smith & Wesson = gay lovers.
>Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels = gay lovers.
>Amos & Andy = gay lovers.
>Charles Stewart Rolls & Frederick Henry Royce = gay lovers.
>Lewis & Clark = gay lovers.
>
>All of the above were sexual pairs and I can prove it! Some extremely
>selective photos or quotes and some out of context commentary and you
>will be convinced. Right? RIGHT?
>
>This woman has had too much license in this newsgroup. Like religious
>and political extremists, her sexual extremism has bled over to other
>areas of thought including Star Trek. Just like them, she has twisted
>whatever facts she can to suit her cause and downplayed the obvious.
>She is not at all affected that most find her allegation preposterous,
>because her skewed perception doesn't have to coincide with reality.
>Surrounded by submissive males, including her husband, she is
>apparently never told that occasionally she can be wrong. Dead wrong.


Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
now.

-LMB
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #58245 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 04:47
Ragnar  
Louis M. Brown wrote:

> Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
> goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
> now.

Yes, her delusion will allow for no questioning voices.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58246 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 05:22
Snake  
"Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
news:D7OdnQmfX6azYjXfRVn-iQ [at] giganews.com...
> Louis M. Brown wrote:
>
>> Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
>> goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
>> now.
>
> Yes, her delusion will allow for no questioning voices.

I don't know. I think Laura is much more reasonable about this whole thing
than 90% of the people on the NG. She never seems to attack unless attacked
first, never insults unless insulted first, and posts her opinions and her
beliefs in facts as she views them - yet it is only a NG and you are
*always* allowed to make your own choice in real life. Trek is about
diversity and she's only making a point that this diversity should and can
include homosexuality. The point of her being right or wrong I, personally,
now believe is not the point - the point is to open your mind that /it can
happen/. Free your mind.

Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
heterosexual, nor enough evidence to prove they are not bisexual. We simply
are not shown enough hard facts, enough of their everyday life, to prove
anything; the characters themselves have never stated canon their stand on
the issue.

I, personally, do not think K/S happens. But - BUT! - we just can't PROVE
otherwise and I *think* all Laura is saying is "open your mind - to anything
and everything and don't limit yourself".

IDIC - in other words. If Trek is about IDIC then there *has* to be
homosexuality and therefore we must accept it. Too many people are placing
20th century "morality" on 23rd century living examples, if it is OK for me
to go into futuristic character myself.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #58247 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 06:30
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:

> I don't know. I think Laura is much more reasonable about this whole thing
> than 90% of the people on the NG. She never seems to attack unless attacked
> first, never insults unless insulted first, and posts her opinions and her
> beliefs in facts as she views them - yet it is only a NG and you are
> *always* allowed to make your own choice in real life. Trek is about
> diversity and she's only making a point that this diversity should and can
> include homosexuality. The point of her being right or wrong I, personally,
> now believe is not the point - the point is to open your mind that /it can
> happen/. Free your mind.

Thank you.
>
> Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
> heterosexual, nor enough evidence to prove they are not bisexual. We simply
> are not shown enough hard facts, enough of their everyday life, to prove
> anything; the characters themselves have never stated canon their stand on
> the issue.

True.
>
> I, personally, do not think K/S happens. But - BUT! - we just can't PROVE
> otherwise and I *think* all Laura is saying is "open your mind - to anything
> and everything and don't limit yourself".

Thank you.
>
> IDIC - in other words. If Trek is about IDIC then there *has* to be
> homosexuality and therefore we must accept it.

Yes.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58254 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 09:09
TBSFIST  
You've missed the point.

Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
gay persons. If I remember right, the subject is dealt with rather well
in a certain TNG episode where Riker becomes interested in androgynous
Soren, a member of the J'naii race (=93The Outcast=94 Season: 5 Episode:
17). It really is a fantastic episode that leaves quite a lasting
impression.

But to infer something from nothing and then state it as fact isn't
just ridiculous, it can be outright dangerous. When this happens in
real life people mention words like slander and libel. Considering the
fictitious nature of the show, all her allegation can do is to malign
someone else's creation by completely misrepresenting it.

To infer a political allegory from Orwell's =93Animal Farm=94 would be
rational. To infer one from =93Barney Learns How To Brush His Teeth=94
would not only be a real stretch of the imagination, it might invoke
ridicule. What Laura Goodwin has surmised regarding Captain Kirk and
Mister Spock is nothing but absurd conjecture.

Freedom is a great thing, and Laura Goodwin has the freedom to create
whatever fiction she wants about two gay males in order to free our
minds. But whether to discuss a work where a homosexual relationship is
either left ambiguous or is clearly stated isn't what I contend with
here because that just isn't the case in this circumstance.

In the end, I am afraid that all of the discussion about this topic
only encourages her to carry it on =93ad infinitum=94. Having said this I
will take my own advice and leave any more argumentation to those who
have more fortitude than I to continuously deal with her ludicrous
claim.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58255 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 09:19
TBSFIST  
You've missed the point.

Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
gay persons. If I remember right, the subject is dealt with rather well
in a certain TNG episode where Riker becomes interested in androgynous
Soren, a member of the J'naii race (The Outcast Season: 5 Episode: 17).
It really is a fantastic episode that leaves quite a lasting
impression.

But to infer something from nothing and then state it as fact isn't
just ridiculous, it can be outright dangerous. When this happens in
real life people mention words like slander and libel. Considering the
fictitious nature of the show, all her allegation can do is to malign
someone else's creation by completely misrepresenting it.

To infer a political allegory from Orwell's Animal Farm would be
rational. To infer one from Barney Learns How To Brush His Teeth would
not only be a real stretch of the imagination, it might invoke
ridicule. What Laura Goodwin has surmised regarding Captain Kirk and
Mister Spock is nothing but absurd conjecture.

Freedom is a great thing, and Laura Goodwin has the freedom to create
whatever fiction she wants about two gay males in order to free our
minds. But whether to discuss a work where a homosexual relationship is
either left ambiguous or is clearly stated isn't what I contend with
here because that just isn't the case in this circumstance.

In the end, I am afraid that all of the discussion about this topic
only encourages her to carry it on ad infinitum. Having said this I
will take my own advice and leave any more argumentation to those who
have more fortitude than I to continuously deal with her ludicrous
claim.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58256 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 09:34
Kweeg  
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:ZH7qe.11398$nk4.5568 [at] trndny01...
> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:D7OdnQmfX6azYjXfRVn-iQ [at] giganews.com...
> > Louis M. Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
> >> goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
> >> now.
> >
> > Yes, her delusion will allow for no questioning voices.
>
> I don't know. I think Laura is much more reasonable about this whole
thing
> than 90% of the people on the NG. She never seems to attack unless
attacked
> first, never insults unless insulted first, and posts her opinions and her
> beliefs in facts as she views them - yet it is only a NG and you are
> *always* allowed to make your own choice in real life. Trek is about
> diversity and she's only making a point that this diversity should and can
> include homosexuality. The point of her being right or wrong I,
personally,
> now believe is not the point - the point is to open your mind that /it can
> happen/. Free your mind.

I used to think the same thing about Laura, I've given her the benefit of
the doubt, but when confronted with logic and repeatedly asked to answer
questions she just shrugs or changes the subject. She repeatedly refuses to
admit or allow anyone else's points of view, she is always right, period.
She has gone out of her way to insult and make an enemy of me.


> Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
> heterosexual, nor enough evidence to prove they are not bisexual. We
simply
> are not shown enough hard facts, enough of their everyday life, to prove
> anything; the characters themselves have never stated canon their stand on
> the issue.
>
> I, personally, do not think K/S happens. But - BUT! - we just can't PROVE
> otherwise and I *think* all Laura is saying is "open your mind - to
anything
> and everything and don't limit yourself".

Indeed. I always maintain the K/S thing was a bit of fun, another was for
Trek fans to laugh at themselves, but Laura actually believes that K/S did
happen and was intentionally written in to the series. Anything else is
heresy, according to The World According to Laura (tm) an no amount of
logical debate wil alow her to even *see* another's point of veiw.


> IDIC - in other words. If Trek is about IDIC then there *has* to be
> homosexuality and therefore we must accept it. Too many people are
placing
> 20th century "morality" on 23rd century living examples, if it is OK for
me
> to go into futuristic character myself.

Laura is totally close minded about it. She insults and alienates people
that disagree with her, so much for IDIC.

--

Qa'pla
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58257 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 09:36
Kweeg  
"TBSFIST" <oncedarknessnowlight [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118387385.129727.268240 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've missed the point.

Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
gay persons. If I remember right, the subject is dealt with rather well
in a certain TNG episode where Riker becomes interested in androgynous
Soren, a member of the J'naii race (The Outcast Season: 5 Episode:
17). It really is a fantastic episode that leaves quite a lasting
impression.

But to infer something from nothing and then state it as fact isn't
just ridiculous, it can be outright dangerous. When this happens in
real life people mention words like slander and libel. Considering the
fictitious nature of the show, all her allegation can do is to malign
someone else's creation by completely misrepresenting it.

To infer a political allegory from Orwell's Animal Farm would be
rational. To infer one from Barney Learns How To Brush His Teeth
would not only be a real stretch of the imagination, it might invoke
ridicule. What Laura Goodwin has surmised regarding Captain Kirk and
Mister Spock is nothing but absurd conjecture.

Freedom is a great thing, and Laura Goodwin has the freedom to create
whatever fiction she wants about two gay males in order to free our
minds. But whether to discuss a work where a homosexual relationship is
either left ambiguous or is clearly stated isn't what I contend with
here because that just isn't the case in this circumstance.

In the end, I am afraid that all of the discussion about this topic
only encourages her to carry it on ad infinitum. Having said this I
will take my own advice and leave any more argumentation to those who
have more fortitude than I to continuously deal with her ludicrous
claim.

Concur. Well said.

--

Qa'pla
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58959 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 13:23
Snake  
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Wpbqe.1632243$6l.299285 [at] pd7tw2no...
> "TBSFIST" <oncedarknessnowlight [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118387385.129727.268240 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You've missed the point.
>
> Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
> against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
> gay persons. If I remember right, the subject is dealt with rather well
> in a certain TNG episode where Riker becomes interested in androgynous
> Soren, a member of the J'naii race (The Outcast Season: 5 Episode:
> 17). It really is a fantastic episode that leaves quite a lasting
> impression.
>
> But to infer something from nothing and then state it as fact isn't
> just ridiculous, it can be outright dangerous. When this happens in
> real life people mention words like slander and libel. Considering the
> fictitious nature of the show, all her allegation can do is to malign
> someone else's creation by completely misrepresenting it.
>
> To infer a political allegory from Orwell's Animal Farm would be
> rational. To infer one from Barney Learns How To Brush His Teeth
> would not only be a real stretch of the imagination, it might invoke
> ridicule. What Laura Goodwin has surmised regarding Captain Kirk and
> Mister Spock is nothing but absurd conjecture.
>
> Freedom is a great thing, and Laura Goodwin has the freedom to create
> whatever fiction she wants about two gay males in order to free our
> minds. But whether to discuss a work where a homosexual relationship is
> either left ambiguous or is clearly stated isn't what I contend with
> here because that just isn't the case in this circumstance.
>
> In the end, I am afraid that all of the discussion about this topic
> only encourages her to carry it on ad infinitum. Having said this I
> will take my own advice and leave any more argumentation to those who
> have more fortitude than I to continuously deal with her ludicrous
> claim.
>
Concur. Well said.

I don't concur - due to your opening line:

> Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
> against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
> gay persons.

Frankly, how dare TBSFIST pass judgement on anyone, and your bias against
homosexuality is quite plain here. Unless TBSFIST would like to change that
opening line.

If you feel Trek can be "used to confront any moral judgments against the
gay lifestyle", or for that matter against anyone, then you have so missed
Roddenberry's and Star Trek's **35** year message and you should simply STOP
watching and STOP calling yourself a Star Trek fan.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58964 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 13:33
Snake  
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:AKeqe.11504$nk4.10880 [at] trndny01...
> I don't concur - due to your opening line:
>
>> Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
>> against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
>> gay persons.
>
> Frankly, how dare TBSFIST pass judgement on anyone, and your bias against
> homosexuality is quite plain here. Unless TBSFIST would like to change
> that opening line.
>
> If you feel Trek can be "used to confront any moral judgments against the
> gay lifestyle", or for that matter against anyone, then you have so missed
> Roddenberry's and Star Trek's **35** year message and you should simply
> STOP watching and STOP calling yourself a Star Trek fan.

TBSFIST's first line uses some vague wording. Please clarify that first
line to be either a positive or negative - it can read either way on it's
own regardless of clarifications later in the paragraph.

Thank you in advance TBSFIST.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58974 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 14:00
Kweeg  
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:AKeqe.11504$nk4.10880 [at] trndny01...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Wpbqe.1632243$6l.299285 [at] pd7tw2no...
> > "TBSFIST" <oncedarknessnowlight [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118387385.129727.268240 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You've missed the point.
> >
> > Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
> > against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
> > gay persons. If I remember right, the subject is dealt with rather well
> > in a certain TNG episode where Riker becomes interested in androgynous
> > Soren, a member of the J'naii race (The Outcast Season: 5 Episode:
> > 17). It really is a fantastic episode that leaves quite a lasting
> > impression.
> >
> > But to infer something from nothing and then state it as fact isn't
> > just ridiculous, it can be outright dangerous. When this happens in
> > real life people mention words like slander and libel. Considering the
> > fictitious nature of the show, all her allegation can do is to malign
> > someone else's creation by completely misrepresenting it.
> >
> > To infer a political allegory from Orwell's Animal Farm would be
> > rational. To infer one from Barney Learns How To Brush His Teeth
> > would not only be a real stretch of the imagination, it might invoke
> > ridicule. What Laura Goodwin has surmised regarding Captain Kirk and
> > Mister Spock is nothing but absurd conjecture.
> >
> > Freedom is a great thing, and Laura Goodwin has the freedom to create
> > whatever fiction she wants about two gay males in order to free our
> > minds. But whether to discuss a work where a homosexual relationship is
> > either left ambiguous or is clearly stated isn't what I contend with
> > here because that just isn't the case in this circumstance.
> >
> > In the end, I am afraid that all of the discussion about this topic
> > only encourages her to carry it on ad infinitum. Having said this I
> > will take my own advice and leave any more argumentation to those who
> > have more fortitude than I to continuously deal with her ludicrous
> > claim.
> >
> Concur. Well said.
>
> I don't concur - due to your opening line:

Not *my* opening line there....


> > Star Trek can and SHOULD be used to confront any moral judgments
> > against the gay lifestyle, including any character judgments against
> > gay persons.
>
> Frankly, how dare TBSFIST pass judgement on anyone, and your bias against
> homosexuality is quite plain here. Unless TBSFIST would like to change
that
> opening line.

Err no, Trek has confronted many moral judgments on lots of different
subjects, did you miss something?


> If you feel Trek can be "used to confront any moral judgments against the
> gay lifestyle", or for that matter against anyone, then you have so missed
> Roddenberry's and Star Trek's **35** year message and you should simply
STOP
> watching and STOP calling yourself a Star Trek fan.

What are you ranting about? Please calm down *or* STOP watching and STOP
calling yourself a Star Trek fan, we can use less flighty people making us
all look bad.

--

Qa'pla
Kweeg
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #58977 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 14:06
Ragnar  
Snake wrote:

> Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
> heterosexual,

Well, no proof except the words from Roddenberry's own lips:

"... we never suggested in the series... physical love between the two."
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58997 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 15:40
Snake  
"Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OLWdnT7cbcfLHzTfRVn-jA [at] giganews.com...
> Snake wrote:
>
> > Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
> > heterosexual,
>
> Well, no proof except the words from Roddenberry's own lips:
>
> "... we never suggested in the series... physical love between the two."

Oh, I fully agree. But regretfully Roddenberry's words are not in the
filmed canon of Star Trek; therefore it cannot be unconditionally construed
as "canon".
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #58998 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 15:40
Snake  
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:phfqe.1637140$8l.508722 [at] pd7tw1no...
> What are you ranting about? Please calm down *or* STOP watching and STOP
> calling yourself a Star Trek fan, we can use less flighty people making us
> all look bad.

Sorry guy. But the first line is very vaguely written and in a heated word
debate such vagaries can be misquoted by the opposition. I simply made that
post to show such a thing can be done. The sentence went passive clause on
the negative, only to be corrected in the next sentence, and I wished to
point that out. John snips and misquotes to serve his own biased agenda
constantly and a bit of a slip can give him what he seeks.

Thanks to all and apologies for ruffled feathers, as usual :)
Snake
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59002 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 16:43
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:

> If you feel Trek can be "used to confront any moral judgments against the
> gay lifestyle", or for that matter against anyone, then you have so missed
> Roddenberry's and Star Trek's **35** year message and you should simply STOP
> watching and STOP calling yourself a Star Trek fan.

I totally agree.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59003 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 16:53
ToolPackinMama  
I think it's amusing that my post about Kirk's heterosexual
relationships has turned into another fight about homosexuality.

FWIW, GR said many things about homosexuality and K/S. The people who
republish the "We never suggested it in the series" remark are guilty of
the very tactic that they supposedly deplore: the deceptive editing of
the quote.

Here's the full quote, and the context it came from:

<< We [the interviewers] tell Gene [Roddenberry] something of our recent
interview with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard [Nimoy] - touching on the
Kirk-Spock relationship, and Nimoy's feeling that Kirk was essential to
Spock's life:

"I know you've told us you designed that relationship as 'Two halves
which come together to make a whole'. Is that how you still see it?"

[Roddenberry]: "Oh yes. As I've said, I definitely designed it as a love
relationship. I think that's what we're all about - love, the effort to
reach out to each other. I think that's a lovely thing. Also,
dramatically, I designed Kirk and Spock to complete each other - and in
fact, the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad to be the dramatic embodiment of the
parts of one person: logic, emotion, and the balance between them. You
cannot have an internal monolog on the screen, so that is a way of
personifying it, getting it out where it can be seen - that internal
debate which we all have within. AND I designed Kirk and Spock, as I
told you, as dream images of myself, the two halves. But in terms of the
characters, yes. That closeness... absolutely."

There is also this:

"There's a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement which
compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion* to the
relationship between Kirk and Spock - focusing on the closeness of the
friendship, the feeling that they would die for one another..."

[Roddenberry]: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with
love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal -
we never suggested in the series - physical love between the two. But
it's the - we certainly had the feeling that the affection was
sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century."

[From: Shatner: Where No Man...: The Authorized Biography of William
Shatner (Chapter 7 - Page 145, 147-8)]
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59004 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 16:56
ToolPackinMama  
1) << We [the interveiwers] tell Gene [Roddenberry] something of our
recent interveiw with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard [Nimoy] - touching on
the Kirk-Spock relationship, and Nimoy's feeling that Kirk was essential
to Spock's life:

"I know you've told us you designed that relationship as 'Two halves
which come together to make a whole'. Is that how you still see it?"

[Roddenberry]: "Oh yes. As I've said, I definitely designed it as a love
relationship. I think that's what we're all about - love, the effort to
reach out to each other. I think that's a lovely thing. Also,
dramatically, I designed Kirk and Spock to complete each other - and in
fact, the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad to be the dramatic embodiment of the
parts of one person: logic, emotion, and the balance between them. You
cannot have an internal monolog on the screen, so that is a way of
personifying it, getting it out where it can be seen - that internal
debate which we all have within. AND I designed Kirk and Spock, as I
told you, as dream images of myself, the two halves. But in terms of the
characters, yes. That closeness... absolutely."

There is also this:

"There's a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement which
compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion* to the
relationship between Kirk and Spock - focusing on the closeness of the
friendship, the feeling that they would die for one another..."

[Roddenberry]: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with
love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal...
we never suggested in the series... physical love between the two. But
it's the... we certainly had the feeling that the affection was
sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century."

[From: Shatner: Where No Man...: The Authorized Biography of William
Shatner (Chapter 7 - Page 145, 147-8)]

2) Gene Roddenberry: "In the fifth season [of Star Trek: The Next
Generation] viewers will see more of shipboard life [including] Gay crew
members in day-to-day circumstances."

[Interview, The Advocate, 1991]

3) "My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the
conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down "fags"
as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something
anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those
days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I
gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over
many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women." Gene
Roddenberry, to The Humanist, 1991

[From http://www.philosophysphere.com/humanist.html <-- Full interview]

4) << In 1987, veteran Trek writer David Gerrold (author of the
original episode The Trouble with Tribbles) accompanied Gene Roddenberry
to a Star Trek convention in Boston where Roddenberry was asked by some
gay Trek fans if there would be a gay character on The Next Generation.
Roddenberry answered in the affirmative and subsequently brought the
idea up in a staff meeting, reportedly responding to some initial
resistance with the statement "Times have changed and we have got to be
aware of it". Since TNG was a syndicated show, and Paramount had given
Roddenberry the freedom to do whatever he wanted to do, the road seemed
clear. Gerrold developed a story called Blood and Fire that featured a
gay male couple and infectious alien creatures called bloodworms that
were an allegory for AIDS. Roddenberry and the writing staff loved the
story, and Gerrold went on a vacation. What happened when he returned is
described as follows in Star Trek The Next Generation: The Continuing
Mission:

"[Gerold] found that his script was in disfavor. The idealism of
Roddenberry's initial intentions to push the limits of television
story-telling had hit the wall of business concerns. Much of the change
in perception of the script resulted from Paramount's concern that
because the series was syndicated, in some markets it might air in the
afternoon when younger viewers would be part of the audience. Thus the
studio had to weigh the mandate to produce provocative, issues-oriented
episodes against the possible reaction of parents who might not want
their children to see issues they felt were more suited to adult
programing hours.

Though Gerrold fought for his script and it was slated for production,
he also understood his responsibilities as a professional writer under
contract to the series. Thus, he followed the producers' notes to revise
the script by dropping the gay characters.

Though the revised script was not as powerful as the first, more and
more revisions followed. While in television it is not unusual to have
ten or more rounds of revisions on a script, eventually Gerrold's script
was dropped from the production schedule." >>

[From http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/trek.html]

5) Gene Roddenberry: "I'm sorry I never had a homosexual relationship,"
he remarks pensively, out of the blue, one afternoon, "because I know
that there must be many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in
those relationships. I think that I have in a way been cursed by having
picked my particular time period and background and so on, because I
have no doubt that I am capable of homosexualism. As a matter of fact,
remind me, I'm in the midst of making a decision about homosexuality -
male and female - and how we are going to treat it on Star Trek, the
lovely ways in which we will treat it - without defying present average
conditions."

[From Gene Roddenberry; The Last Conversation (by Yvonne Fern, 1994)]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520088425/107-693024 1-6153356
<-- buy it
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59005 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:20
phyphor  
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:22:33 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:

>"Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:D7OdnQmfX6azYjXfRVn-iQ [at] giganews.com...
>> Louis M. Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
>>> goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
>>> now.
>>
>> Yes, her delusion will allow for no questioning voices.
>
>I don't know. I think Laura is much more reasonable about this whole thing
>than 90% of the people on the NG.

You're kidding, right?

> She never seems to attack unless attacked
>first, never insults unless insulted first, and posts her opinions and her
>beliefs in facts as she views them - yet it is only a NG and you are
>*always* allowed to make your own choice in real life.

Except in this NG's case, where discussion of non-K/S HAS been
hijacked by Laura in the past. She's even done that "cute" little
"But what does this have to do with K/S" thing.

> Trek is about
>diversity and she's only making a point that this diversity should and can
>include homosexuality. The point of her being right or wrong I, personally,
>now believe is not the point - the point is to open your mind that /it can
>happen/. Free your mind.

Um, Trek's shown homosexuality in various flavors in the past. It
doesn't mean that TOS was a hotbed of homoeroticism like she seems to
think.

>
>Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
>heterosexual, nor enough evidence to prove they are not bisexual. We simply
>are not shown enough hard facts, enough of their everyday life, to prove
>anything; the characters themselves have never stated canon their stand on
>the issue.
>
>I, personally, do not think K/S happens. But - BUT! - we just can't PROVE
>otherwise and I *think* all Laura is saying is "open your mind - to anything
>and everything and don't limit yourself".

Nope. There's been times where she's 'shouted' that she could 'prove'
K/S.

>
>IDIC - in other words. If Trek is about IDIC then there *has* to be
>homosexuality and therefore we must accept it. Too many people are placing
>20th century "morality" on 23rd century living examples, if it is OK for me
>to go into futuristic character myself.
>

I don't have anything against homosexuality myself. My only issue
with the whole K/S thing is that it's just not an important topic.
However, she seems to feel that it merits endless discussion, to the
detriment of this (and other) newsgroups.

Someitmes, it *IS* nice to change the subject.

-LMB
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, [message #59006 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:21
ANIM8Rfsk  
in article ZH7qe.11398$nk4.5568 [at] trndny01, Snake at
fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com wrote on 6/9/05
8:22 PM:

> I don't know. I think Laura is much more reasonable about this whole thing
> than 90% of the people on the NG. She never seems to attack unless attacked
> first, never insults unless insulted first

Uh - right. Yeah. Uh huh.

She's a troll. Nothing more.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" K/S Laura [message #59007 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:22
ANIM8Rfsk  
in article tosha1dh4bi727huav0u2ja8klho53ukk6 [at] 4ax.com, Louis M. Brown at
phyphor [at] rocketmail.com wrote on 6/9/05 6:53 PM:

> On 9 Jun 2005 15:42:54 -0700, "TBSFIST"
> <oncedarknessnowlight [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> (copied from previous post but still relevent to the topic at hand)
>>
>> Interesting. Whereas in the past I felt that you (Laura Goodwin) were
>> trying your hand at a bit of twisted satire directed towards the TOS
>> community, I now see that you actually believe that Captain Kirk and
>> his First Officer Spock were homosexual lovers.
>>
>> And the writers of the show inserted this gay love into the series for
>> what reason?
>>
>> This seems to me to be a classic example of paradigm bias. There is no
>> real evidence in the show for such a relationship as you suggest,
>> although there is great evidence for a close friendship between these
>> two men.
>>
>> There is always the danger of reading ones own meaning into whatever
>> the subject or topic may be. There is no lack of voices ready proclaim
>> some bizarre, controversial fact with a weak and unsupported basis in
>> reality. Most believe they are right and that those in opposition
>> suffer from some psychological blindness to the real truth.
>>
>> One great danger in your assertion is that if two men exhibit such a
>> devoted personal bond, they must be homosexual lovers. This would make
>> any heterosexual male friends wary and skittish around people like you
>> ready to brand them lovers because they aren't aloof and distant.
>>
>> I think the real question is not were Kirk and Spock gay lovers.
>>
>> The real question is why do you need for them to be?
>>
>> P.S. - The answer may lie at www.lauragoodwin.org. I have no objections
>>
>> to this type of behavior, as long as she can separate her sexual
>> philosophy from Star Trek. Alas, it seems that she cannot as evidenced
>> by her prolific posts to this newsgroup on the topic, desperately
>> trying to prove her point.
>>
>>
>>
>> (and later in the afore mentioned post)
>>
>> Again, could not two men who are close personal friends act in EXACTLY
>> the same way?
>>
>> Wait a minute; I want to join in. Let me see - Starsky & Hutch = gay
>> lovers.
>> Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn = gay lovers.
>> Abbott & Costello = gay lovers.
>> McDonnell & Douglas = gay lovers.
>> Bing Crosby & Bob Hope = gay lovers.
>> Siskel & Ebert = gay lovers.
>> Barnum & Bailey = gay lovers.
>> Cheech Marin & Tommy Chong = gay lovers.
>> Watson & Crick = gay lovers.
>> Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson = gay lovers.
>> Barnes & Noble = gay lovers.
>> Felix Unger & Oscar Madison = gay lovers.
>> Harley & Davidson = gay lovers.
>> Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid = gay lovers.
>> Sears & Roebuck = gay lovers.
>> Andy Taylor & Barney Fife = gay lovers.
>> Simon & Garfunkle = gay lovers.
>> Lone Ranger & Tonto = gay lovers.
>> Ralph Kramden & Ed Norton = gay lovers.
>> Simon & Schuster = gay lovers.
>> Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis = gay lovers.
>> Levi & Strauss = gay lovers.
>> Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy = gay lovers.
>> Smith & Wesson = gay lovers.
>> Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels = gay lovers.
>> Amos & Andy = gay lovers.
>> Charles Stewart Rolls & Frederick Henry Royce = gay lovers.
>> Lewis & Clark = gay lovers.
>>
>> All of the above were sexual pairs and I can prove it! Some extremely
>> selective photos or quotes and some out of context commentary and you
>> will be convinced. Right? RIGHT?
>>
>> This woman has had too much license in this newsgroup. Like religious
>> and political extremists, her sexual extremism has bled over to other
>> areas of thought including Star Trek. Just like them, she has twisted
>> whatever facts she can to suit her cause and downplayed the obvious.
>> She is not at all affected that most find her allegation preposterous,
>> because her skewed perception doesn't have to coincide with reality.
>> Surrounded by submissive males, including her husband, she is
>> apparently never told that occasionally she can be wrong. Dead wrong.
>
>
> Actually, she's told that she's full of it, quite often. However, it
> goes in one ear and out the other, so folks tend to just killfile her
> now.
>
> -LMB
>
And why the faq suggest you add some of the kilfile words, like Laura or K/S
so people don't see this crap at all.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59008 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:40
Snake  
"Louis M. Brown" <phyphor [at] rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:spbja1dn6un0lumgqsqsdslme0gm066rcg [at] 4ax.com...
> Someitmes, it *IS* nice to change the subject.

I'll totally agree on that. We have been stuck inside this sci-fi
homosexuality issue for, at least, the last past month.

Isn't there *anything* else we can talk about??
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] [message #59010 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:42
ANIM8Rfsk  
in article spbja1dn6un0lumgqsqsdslme0gm066rcg [at] 4ax.com, Louis M. Brown at
phyphor [at] rocketmail.com wrote on 6/10/05 8:20 AM:

>> I, personally, do not think K/S happens. But - BUT! - we just can't PROVE
>> otherwise and I *think* all Laura is saying is "open your mind - to anything
>> and everything and don't limit yourself".
>
> Nope. There's been times where she's 'shouted' that she could 'prove'
> K/S.

Snake is just sock puppetting for Laura. Please add killfile words like
LAURA or K/S to the subject, re the faq.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59012 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:52
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:
> "Louis M. Brown" <phyphor [at] rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> news:spbja1dn6un0lumgqsqsdslme0gm066rcg [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>Someitmes, it *IS* nice to change the subject.
>
>
> I'll totally agree on that.

::shrug:: I tried (see subject line).
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [message #59013 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 17:57
ToolPackinMama  
Can't even talk about Kirk's ~girlfriends~ without stirring up the
hornet's nest. :)

In summation, Captain Kirk was not a sexist playboy. Anyone who says he
is, is wrong.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59020 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 18:53
Ragnar  
Snake wrote:
> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:OLWdnT7cbcfLHzTfRVn-jA [at] giganews.com...
>
>>Snake wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Factually there is not enough evidence to prove they are strictly
>>>heterosexual,
>>
>>Well, no proof except the words from Roddenberry's own lips:
>>
>>"... we never suggested in the series... physical love between the two."
>
>
> Oh, I fully agree. But regretfully Roddenberry's words are not in the
> filmed canon of Star Trek; therefore it cannot be unconditionally construed
> as "canon".


Oh, "filmed canon". If you want it that way, you still have no legs to
stand on.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59024 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 19:26
Snake  
"Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ct6dnQSWfPsMWDTfRVn-1g [at] giganews.com...
> Oh, "filmed canon". If you want it that way, you still have no legs to
> stand on.

:) Not necessarily. Scientifically the lack of visible evidence does not
negate any existence. In science the negative must be proven as fully as
the positive (please see "scientific method") in order for the positive to
be considered valid unconditionally. Simply stating you can prove a
positive, while not proving the negative, invalidates the Law and only makes
it a Theory.

I am not saying that I support the K/S idea - I, *personally*, do not
believe in it. But there is no possible way to prove it /absolutely/
negative and therefore the theory scientifically stands. Some may not like
that but that is the way it regretfully operates.

Peace
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59029 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 20:07
Ragnar  
Snake wrote:
> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Ct6dnQSWfPsMWDTfRVn-1g [at] giganews.com...
>
>>Oh, "filmed canon". If you want it that way, you still have no legs to
>>stand on.
>
>
> :) Not necessarily. Scientifically the lack of visible evidence does not
> negate any existence. In science the negative must be proven as fully as
> the positive (please see "scientific method") in order for the positive to
> be considered valid unconditionally. Simply stating you can prove a
> positive, while not proving the negative, invalidates the Law and only makes
> it a Theory.

Once again, if you support "filmed canon", you have no legs to stand on.

Scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't apply here since
there isn't anything to test against.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59030 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 20:13
Snake  
"Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
news:xrWdneAcFONpSzTfRVn-jg [at] giganews.com...
> Scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't apply here since
> there isn't anything to test against.

That's my point exactly! You cannot prove the positive nor the negative in
an absolute sense - "there isn't anything to test against".
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59035 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 21:00
kev  
On 10 Jun 2005, the world was enlightened by Snake's opinion about...

> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:xrWdneAcFONpSzTfRVn-jg [at] giganews.com...
>> Scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't apply here since
>> there isn't anything to test against.
>
> That's my point exactly! You cannot prove the positive nor the negative
> in an absolute sense - "there isn't anything to test against".
>
>
>

Then there is no 'theory'. Not even a hypothesis. Nothing here but TPM's
wishful thinking.


kev

--
Absolute zero is cool.

The Eeeevil Cabal's Nine of Spades.
Wickeddoll's on-demand übernerd.
Declared Hero of alt.tv.star-trek.tos by the ToolPackinMama on 14.09.2003.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59042 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 21:58
Kweeg  
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:iLgqe.13$ej1.7 [at] trndny09...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:phfqe.1637140$8l.508722 [at] pd7tw1no...
> > What are you ranting about? Please calm down *or* STOP watching and STOP
> > calling yourself a Star Trek fan, we can use less flighty people making
us
> > all look bad.
>
> Sorry guy. But the first line is very vaguely written and in a heated
word
> debate such vagaries can be misquoted by the opposition. I simply made
that
> post to show such a thing can be done. The sentence went passive clause
on
> the negative, only to be corrected in the next sentence, and I wished to
> point that out. John snips and misquotes to serve his own biased agenda
> constantly and a bit of a slip can give him what he seeks.
>
> Thanks to all and apologies for ruffled feathers, as usual :)
> Snake

No worries, but if your referring to the troll "John Shocked(?)" I KFed him
long ago so I don't read any of his loony posts and ignore all the rest of
the cross posted crap.

--

Qa'pla
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59055 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 01:58
ToolPackinMama  
ToolPackinMama wrote:

I think this one is particularly interesting:

> Gene Roddenberry: "I'm sorry I never had a homosexual relationship, because I know
> that there must be many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in
> those relationships. I think that I have in a way been cursed by having
> picked my particular time period and background and so on, because I
> have no doubt that I am capable of homosexualism."
>
> [From Gene Roddenberry; The Last Conversation (by Yvonne Fern, 1994)]

:)
K/S Devotees Are Deluded Mentalcases [message #59070 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 03:36
urbanasphalt  
TBSFIST wrote:

Whereas in the past I felt that you (Laura Goodwin) were
> trying your hand at a bit of twisted satire directed towards the TOS
> community, I now see that you actually believe that Captain Kirk and
> his First Officer Spock were homosexual lovers.
>
> And the writers of the show inserted this gay love into the series for
> what reason?

> This woman has had too much license in this newsgroup. Like religious
> and political extremists, her sexual extremism has bled over to other
> areas of thought including Star Trek. Just like them, she has twisted
> whatever facts she can to suit her cause and downplayed the obvious.
> She is not at all affected that most find her allegation preposterous,
> because her skewed perception doesn't have to coincide with reality.
> Surrounded by submissive males, including her husband, she is
> apparently never told that occasionally she can be wrong. Dead wrong.

-------

This woman is nothing more than a deluded mentalcase. You give her too
much credit by trying to argue and reason with her her. She is
obviously a psychotic degenerate with a history of psychiatric
interventions behind her and I'm sure she's undergoing some sort of
treatment right now.

Her Wiccan past, disdain for "vanilla" people and hatred of
heterosexuality are just a few examples of her freakishness.

It is enough to say: TPM: FUCK OFF.

That's all it takes.

Also, this is just a dumb newsgroup. It doesn't matter, anyway.

(The Glance Theory. Bwahahahaha!)
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59074 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 04:23
Ragnar  
Snake wrote:
> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:xrWdneAcFONpSzTfRVn-jg [at] giganews.com...
>
>>Scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't apply here since
>>there isn't anything to test against.
>
>
> That's my point exactly! You cannot prove the positive nor the negative in
> an absolute sense - "there isn't anything to test against".

In other words, "filmed canon" has zero evidence of a homosexual
relationship between Kirk and Spock. No one gets bent over a table, no
one gets kissed, no grabass. And Roddenberry even said they didn't have
a homosexual relationship.

Good enough for me.
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59075 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 04:24
Ragnar  
Snake wrote:
> "Ragnar" <rworkss [at] comsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:xrWdneAcFONpSzTfRVn-jg [at] giganews.com...
>
>>Scientific method is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't apply here since
>>there isn't anything to test against.
>
>
> That's my point exactly! You cannot prove the positive nor the negative in
> an absolute sense - "there isn't anything to test against".

In other words, "filmed canon" has zero evidence of a homosexual
relationship between Kirk and Spock. No one gets bent over a table, no
one gets kissed, no grabass. And Roddenberry even said they didn't have
a homosexual relationship.

Good enough for me.
Re: K/S Devotees Are Deluded Mentalcases [message #59076 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 04:25
Snake  
<urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118453793.904951.182920 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Her Wiccan past (snip)...are just a few examples of her freakishness.

That is completely uncalled for. There are millions of Wiccans around the
world and having a personal distain for their belief does /not/ make them
"freakish". It makes them *different*.
Re: Stephen Dulka Is A Famous Netkook [message #59077 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 05:22
ToolPackinMama  
Snake wrote:

> <urbanasphalt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118453793.904951.182920 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Her Wiccan past (snip)...are just a few examples of her freakishness.
>
>
> That is completely uncalled for. There are millions of Wiccans around the
> world and having a personal distain for their belief does /not/ make them
> "freakish". It makes them *different*.

Snake, everything he says is uncalled for, not just here, but in every
forum that he participates in.

http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/trolls/prometheus.html

BTW, I'm not Wiccan, and never have been.

He's been attacking me non-stop for years, in a purely abusive fashion.
But I'm not his only target. Haven't you noticed that he regularly
rolls in to insult the entire NG? Why even talk with him?
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f, 1/1) [message #59088 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 07:01
TBSFIST  
I thought it was obvious what the word AGAINST meant in the context
that I used it. I guess OPPOSED TO would have been a little clearer.

I don't think that Laura Goodwin is a troll, just a woman with a skewed
sense of reality. I hope that she doesn't think that I have attacked
her character, just her outlandish way of reasoning. Heck, maybe she
just can't enjoy an episode of TOS without thinking of the two lead
actors getting down and dirty. Maybe she can't enjoy sex without lots
of black leather and red whelps on her partner. I'm OK with both of
those.

Joking about Star Trek is also totally appropriate, in my opinion. If
you can't occasionally make fun of it, then you may be taking it a
little too seriously. But this is definitely more than just humor to
her. She is compelled to convince others to adopt her point of view. I
will admit that this post began hopefully heterosexual on Laura's part.
Maybe the whole thing was a complete waste of time and is better off
being deleted by Google.

BTW, the acronym stands for The Best Science Fiction Is Star Trek.

Anybody want to discuss lesbian vampire films? (Just kidding, way too
off topic; OR... IS... IT? Laura? Help me out here!)
Re: REVISED: TOS commentary "Captain Kirk Loves Women" [PG] (K/f,1/1) [message #59090 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 07:07
ToolPackinMama  
TBSFIST wrote:

> I don't think that Laura Goodwin is a troll

How terribly generous of you, LOL.

FWIW, I've been a regular in these NGs for years. You? :)
Vorheriges Thema:OT but amusing: wind-powered robots
Nächstes Thema:The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 11:15:34 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08276 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered