A quick factual question are there any known gay characters in Star Trek or Star Wars?
I've no real interest in debate whether or not there should be openly gay characters in these franchises, or which characters might be/should be just wondering if there are any.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:A quick factual question are there any known gay characters in Star Trek or Star Wars?
I've no real interest in debate whether or not there should be openly gay characters in these franchises, or which characters might be/should be just wondering if there are any.

Do you mean characters within the show or the actors who may of played characters?

Either way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Star_Trek

The Pocket Books 1992 guideline for story submission, "How to Submit Creative Material," states: "We are not interested in books that suggest anything other than friendship between Kirk and Spock or any other crewmembers." Except as indicated below, none of the Star Trek films or television series have had any characters officially identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), nor have there been stories that directly address LGBT themes. This has prompted Star Trek fans to debate the sexual orientation of certain characters, and whether particular storylines were intended to offer a critique of homophobia.

And it is well known that George Takei is gay (he played Sulu from ST:TOS).

Susan Ivanova was openly lesbian in Babylon 5.

Wesley Crusher was pretty gay.

Ahtman wrote:Wesley Crusher was once a very bright and chipper young lad, but the crushing expectations of being a man-child forced him into early retirement from the show.

Fixed it for ya.

Also, there is implied sexual/deeper affectionate relationships with Spock and Kirk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Star Wars:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Juhani

Juhani is the first female character written for the Star Wars universe that is a lesbian. An error in the first release of the video game allowed player-characters of both male and female genders to access the Juhani romance sub-plot, leading some people to believe that Juhani was bi-sexual, but the error has since been corrected and the romance sub-plot restricted to female player-characters. Juhani's romance sub-plot is still available to male player-characters via fan-made mods and is still noted as accessible to all player-characters on her Databank entry.

Despite Juhani being a romantic option to the female Revan in the first game, if Revan is set to light-side female in the sequel, it is assumed that Revan had a relationship with Carth Onasi instead, and no mention of Juhani is made. However, both the Juhani and Carth Onasi romance sub-plots are assumed to be non-canon, as Revan is canonically male and had a relationship with Bastila Shan.

Jadzia Dax when lesbo on DS9's when she met an old wife of one of her past hosts...dose that count?

The reason there's no sexuality issues in Star Trek is because in the timeframe it is set in, sexuality is a non-issue anyway. This from a certain Captain Sulu.

WarOne wrote:
And it is well known that George Takei is gay (he played Sulu from ST:TOS).

Wait...Sulus gay?

sigh....


GG

p.s.

Type into google Redlettermedia and once on the site look for the 'Plinkett Review' Of the 2009 Star Trek film. It has a hilarious take on the sexuality of the characters.

I always assume every sci-fi/fantasy character is gay until otherwise indicated.

That's why I didn't bat an eye when J.K. Rowling outed Dumbledore.

Monster Rain wrote:I always assume every sci-fi/fantasy character is gay until otherwise indicated.

That's why I didn't bat an eye when J.K. Rowling outed Dumbledore.

Harry Potter isn't sci-fi or fantasy.

It's reality television.

Duh.

Actually, its all part of my rock and roll fantasy.

generalgrog wrote:

WarOne wrote:
And it is well known that George Takei is gay (he played Sulu from ST:TOS).

Wait...Sulus gay?

sigh....


GG

p.s.

Lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1iQODC5OI

Star wars in general is pretty gay, but I don't remember any openly gay characters in it. Nor with startrek though after TNG i stop watching. B5 and farscape had openly gay characters, some of which had major roles as well. Star wars and the original star trek were both a bit too early to really have openly gay characters.

Lost in Space

I often wonder about the Will Robinson, Dr. Zachary Smith, Robot love triangle.

Oh what a tangled web they did weave.

Melissia wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

WarOne wrote:
And it is well known that George Takei is gay (he played Sulu from ST:TOS).

Wait...Sulus gay?

sigh....


GG

p.s.

Lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1iQODC5OI

Yeah I know...I was making a joke referring back to the last sulu/gay thread....

GG

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Lost in Space

I often wonder about the Will Robinson, Dr. Zachary Smith, Robot love triangle.

Oh what a tangled web they did weave.

I was just watching an old episode of Lost in Space the other day and marveled at the nonchalant way the Robinson's continually allow their young son to wander off with Dr.Smith.

Danger! Danger! Dr. Smith is touching Will Robinson inappropriately!

Monster Rain wrote:Danger! Danger! Dr. Smith is touching Will Robinson inappropriately!

..Exactly.

The third season had more adventure, but episodes like "The Great Vegetable Rebellion" — with actor Stanley Adams as Tybo, the talking carrot —

(from Wiki)
never heard THAT euphemism before!
no wonder it got axed after the third series

Danger! Dr. Smith has been communicating with NAMBLA VIA rockoon!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:A quick factual question are there any known gay characters in Star Trek or Star Wars?
I've no real interest in debate whether or not there should be openly gay characters in these franchises, or which characters might be/should be just wondering if there are any.

Can you imagine how bad a gay character would be in Star Wars, given how bad the black and Jewish stereotype characters are?

Whoa whoa whoa.

What's bad about Lando Calrissian?

Dude's a Space Pimp who made it big from casinos. Don't hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seh8cNirlU8

And let's not even get started on Han Solo and Chewbacca.

George Spiggott wrote:Can you imagine how bad a gay character would be in Star Wars, given how bad the black and Jewish stereotype characters are?

Jewish?

Who did I miss?

Melissia wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seh8cNirlU8

And let's not even get started on Han Solo and Chewbacca.

Chewy.

Kanluwen wrote:Whoa whoa whoa.

What's bad about Lando Calrissian?

Dude's a Space Pimp who made it big from casinos. Don't hate.

In fairness I was referring to his more recent prequel works. But "Hi, I'm the first black character you ever meet. I'm going to sell you out and steal your clothes." fits pretty well.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Jewish?

Who did I miss?

Watto. Jewish stereotype, not Jewish.

Garak for DS9 had a thing for the doctor. The writers were told to back off of the gay/bi angle when they wrote the books. The actor said the role was supposed to push the sexuality issue.

Monster Rain wrote:Danger! Dr. Smith has been communicating with NAMBLA VIA rockoon!

You mean the "National American Marlon Brando look-alikes?"


Sorry i just had to say it (South Park ftw )

George Spiggott wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Whoa whoa whoa.

What's bad about Lando Calrissian?

Dude's a Space Pimp who made it big from casinos. Don't hate.

In fairness I was referring to his more recent prequel works. But "Hi, I'm the first black character you ever meet. I'm going to sell you out and steal your clothes." fits pretty well.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Jewish?
Who did I miss?

Watto. Jewish stereotype, not Jewish.

I'm not trying to bust your balls George, but I think Lando has a lot more depth as a character than you're giving him credit for.

And as for Watto being a Jewish stereotype, I'm not sure I totally get it. Does that just mean every hard-bargaining merchant character is automatically a Jewish stereotype?

Given the Eastern European accent, large nose, and confrontational demeanor I think its a fair assessment.

I don't necessarily agree with the Lando characterization, but Watto is definitely a Jewish stereotype.

Hordini wrote:I'm not trying to bust your balls George, but I think Lando has a lot more depth as a character than you're giving him credit for.

So do I, that's why I put a on the end of that sentence.

Hordini wrote:And as for Watto being a Jewish stereotype, I'm not sure I totally get it. Does that just mean every hard-bargaining merchant character is automatically a Jewish stereotype?

Only if they also have a big hooked nose and a Jewish accent.

Watto is often also accused of being an Arab stereotype. In fact, I've heard that accusation far more than the Jewish one.

The Hutts are a stereotype of my mom's side of the family.

Ahtman wrote:Watto is often also accused of being an Arab stereotype. In fact, I've heard that accusation far more than the Jewish one.

I can see merit in both arguments, but my understanding of the Arab stereotype is essentially flowing robes and the name "bin al Saud".

That may not jive with everyone else, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:The Hutts are a stereotype of my mom's side of the family.

Burn yo.

dogma wrote:Given the Eastern European accent, large nose, and confrontational demeanor I think its a fair assessment.

I don't necessarily agree with the Lando characterization, but Watto is definitely a Jewish stereotype.

George Spiggott wrote:

Hordini wrote:And as for Watto being a Jewish stereotype, I'm not sure I totally get it. Does that just mean every hard-bargaining merchant character is automatically a Jewish stereotype?

Only if they also have a big hooked nose and a Jewish accent.

Okay, I guess I can see where you're coming from with that. I might not be as readily able to pick out stereotypes as many of my peers (maybe that's a good thing?) and I kind of forgot about some of the physical features of the Jewish stereotype. That said, now that I think of it, in one of the later prequels, Watto wears a hat that could kind of reinforce that stereotype as well. I'm not sure I would identify his accent as "Eastern European" or "Jewish," but I admit I'm not as familiar with Eastern European accents and languages as I am others.

George Spiggott wrote:

Hordini wrote:I'm not trying to bust your balls George, but I think Lando has a lot more depth as a character than you're giving him credit for.

So do I, that's why I put a on the end of that sentence.

Fair enough, I didn't put as much weight on the as I ought to have.



One thing I'll note in general though, I do think that the prequel films have more characters that could be seen as representations of stereotypes than the original trilogy, in which the aliens are more likely to be truly alien rather than just a clumsy amalgamation of real-world cultural stereotypes.

Yeah, I don't think you'll find much argument there.

Though the original trilogy definitely pushed aliens into the background prior to the 3rd movie, but that may have been a budgetary thing.

dogma wrote:Yeah, I don't think you'll find much argument there.

Though the original trilogy definitely pushed aliens into the background prior to the 3rd movie, but that may have been a budgetary thing.

Yes, that's certainly true. However, even when looking at the few alien characters who do come to the foreground in the original trilogy (even if only briefly), I think it is much more difficult to associate them with stereotypes. It's not an incredible stretch to recognize stereotypical aspects of characters like Jar Jar Binks or Watto, and most of these can be recognized immediately after seeing the character or hearing their accents. Characters like Chewbacca or Jabba the Hutt, on the other hand, tend to defy these easy classifications, and even characters who are only on-screen a short time like Greedo, Bib Fortuna, and Boushh would be more difficult to describe in any stereotypical human terms than characters from the prequel trilogy.

I'm including Boushh, because even though it was actually Leia in disguise, she did a good enough impression and spoke Ubese well enough to fool Jabba's court. In some ways this makes it an even more interesting example, as it's a case of a human trying to act like another species. Perhaps while undercover Leia was trying to act and speak in ways that could be considered stereotypically Ubese, and by extension, something other than stereotypically human?

Interesting, I hadn't considered that. Good point on the Leia/Boushh blend.

I could make an argument that places Chewie as an "other" blend, but that's a significant stretch. Also, its a bad argument.

Mostly I wonder if Lucas' restraint was a financial issue, or a personal issue. Did he include the sort of aliens he did early in his career because he was more egalitarian, or did he do it because he was lacking the monies?

Back to the Ops question: as far as Star Wars goes, Juhani in KOTOR was a lesbian, IIRC.

Was she, I don't recall that and I've played the game 4 times.

No, according to wookiepedia Baron is correct. She was the first apparently.

dogma wrote:Interesting, I hadn't considered that. Good point on the Leia/Boushh blend.

Thanks!

I could make an argument that places Chewie as an "other" blend, but that's a significant stretch. Also, its a bad argument.

I almost didn't include Chewbacca, because I have heard a few somewhat clumsy and rather stretched arguments that he is a stereotyped "other" figure, although I don't agree with any that I've heard. When you get down to it though, most of the alien characters are some form of "other." The question is whether or not they are an "other" figure by taking up aspects of some real-world cultural stereotype, or whether or not they are an "other" figure by nature of their truly alien characteristics.

Recognizing that you consider it a bad argument and therefore I'm assuming you don't support it, I'd be interested to hear your argument that places Chewbacca as an "other" blend. If you'd like to discuss it but you don't feel like posting it publicly, you can feel free to PM me, or even post it on the OT Zone.

Mostly I wonder if Lucas' restraint was a financial issue, or a personal issue. Did he include the sort of aliens he did early in his career because he was more egalitarian, or did he do it because he was lacking the monies?

Yeah, I don't really know. It's quite possible it could be a combination of both, although it certainly seems that while Lucas' funding was more limited in the original trilogy, he could have inserted cultural stereotypes into alien characters if he wanted to. For that matter, he could have done it with the human characters as well. Having said that, if I really had to guess the primary factor, I think the fact that Lucas actually only directed A New Hope and not The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi, but then ended up directing all of the prequel trilogy is probably the most significant. Perhaps the other directors either helped to tone down stereotypical character types, or simply had a better handle on quality character development than Lucas. Later on, when Lucas took the reins completely in the prequel trilogy, there would be fewer people to temper some of his not-so-good ideas.

Hordini wrote:
Recognizing that you consider it a bad argument and therefore I'm assuming you don't support it, I'd be interested to hear your argument that places Chewbacca as an "other" blend. If you'd like to discuss it but you don't feel like posting it publicly, you can feel free to PM me, or even post it on the OT Zone.

I'm happy to post it here. Without going into an explicit state:

Chewy cannot speak Basic. Chewy is hairy. Chewy is granted inhuman strength. Chewy is bound by an inhuman culture.

Therefore, Chewy is "other". He is all other because his alien nature is emphasized in his relationship with Han.

It isn't very good, but its the best I've seen.

Hordini wrote:
Yeah, I don't really know. It's quite possible it could be a combination of both, although it certainly seems that while Lucas' funding was more limited in the original trilogy, he could have inserted cultural stereotypes into alien characters if he wanted to.

Well, he does stereotype leads. No one will argue that. The question is whether or not he omitted anything for funding purposes.

Of course, there is no definitive answer, I'm just wondering at an odd confluence.

WarOne wrote:



Also, there is implied sexual/deeper affectionate relationships with Spock and Kirk.

I have to disagree. There is this abomination called slashfic though.

Wasn't there a ST:TNG episode where they went to a planet and Riker got it on with a hermaphrodite, or asexual being? I remember it only because it was one of the few episodes where Worf didn't get his butt kicked when fighting someone who wasn't from the ship or a hologram.

Khornholio wrote:Wasn't there a ST:TNG episode where they went to a planet and Riker got it on with a hermaphrodite, or asexual being? I remember it only because it was one of the few episodes where Worf didn't get his butt kicked when fighting someone who wasn't from the ship or a hologram.

Yep, that was an interesting episode for it's time. All of the species were hermaphrodites but secretly some craved to be one gender or the other and the one that took a shine to Riker wanted to be a lady.

It had a very unhappy ending and a good moral message about homophobia and the subjugation of homosexual people by regimes around the world. I thought, for it's time, it was a very strong and well written episode.

There is also the episode when Dr Crusher fell for the male host of a dax like being the host died and was replaced by a female the new host wanted to continue the relationship but the doctor turned her down.

Jar Jar Binks was pretty gay.

Surely C3PO?

He was certainly pretty camp...

No way. He just acts that way to get the chicks.

An intergalactic Gok Wan if you will. (Gok Wan isn't gay you see, he's just found a sure fire way to get his hands on bewbz)

With his gold lamee finish, the "ooh let me polish your helmet" and "Is that a pistol in your holster or are you just pleased to see me, big boy!" catchphrases, there is not a lot to debate for the camp android.

Star Trek has hardly any gay characters even alluded to because certain people don't want it in the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Star_Trek#LGBT_in_Star_Trek

Roddenberry had come around to the idea of introducing a gay character but once he died Berman overruled it. Ron Moore wanted to try for a gay character but was shut down. Other people involved have wanted to approach the subject too...it just seems that someone high up doesn't want it in the show. Which is sad IMO. It hardly helps that one of the most openly bisexual characters is Kira's evil Mirror-Universe double, where it appears to be one a few personality traits designed to indicate her perversion/corruption.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Star Trek has hardly any gay characters even alluded to because certain people don't want it in the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Star_Trek#LGBT_in_Star_Trek

Roddenberry had come around to the idea of introducing a gay character but once he died Berman overruled it. Ron Moore wanted to try for a gay character but was shut down. Other people involved have wanted to approach the subject too...it just seems that someone high up doesn't want it in the show. Which is sad IMO. It hardly helps that one of the most openly bisexual characters is Kira's evil Mirror-Universe double, where it appears to be one a few personality traits designed to indicate her perversion/corruption.

I thought her principle evil shown in her desire to cop a feel of her light universe self, was her supreme vanity and how appealling it was to be able to actually feth herself.

And yet, given Rodenberry's utopian society intended by Trek (no need for money, people working together etc) I feel an openly gay character would fly in the face of this. Far better that given how few people in the Command Staff actually have partners, to leave it unsaid, having long since ceased to be a problem, or even worth commenting upon.

Big pat on the back right there.

While I understand the reasoning, the actual statement you used confuses me-- why would it fly in the face of it?

Just having an openly gay character wouldn't fly in the face of it. Making an issue about it would.

Maybe, in the future, more gay people have outgrown having to behave like flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens.

Just thinking out loud here. Maybe they just show up to Starfleet and do their jobs and not make a big deal out of it.

I haven't met many homosexuals that go out of their way to be flamboyant. Most often they simply behave differently from others, and that is taken as "flaunting" their sexuality. This irritates homosexual people because heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality every bit as much, we straight folk simply don't notice it because it is the norm.

I mean, sure, homosexuals will be highly extroverted in public when socializing. Heterosexual people often do this as well. But when was the last time you saw a guy go to work in leather chaps and a g-string?

That's kind of my point.

If you're running the helm of a Federation Vessel, who gives a damned if you're gay if you're doing it correctly?

Mr Mystery wrote:And yet, given Rodenberry's utopian society intended by Trek (no need for money, people working together etc) I feel an openly gay character would fly in the face of this. Far better that given how few people in the Command Staff actually have partners, to leave it unsaid, having long since ceased to be a problem, or even worth commenting upon.

Except that they actually showed characters having relationships on the show, and it wouldn't have been flaunting it or anything, just showing the relationship of a homosexual character just as they often showed the relastionships of heterosexual characters.

Thing is, it's been a long time since Star Trek was actually, you know, good. Back when it was good, up until the end of DS9 basically, homosexuality was a lot more contraversial than it is now. As people have noted, DS9 tested the waters with Dax kissing that girl*, and people freaked out over that - imagine if TNG had had a gay character?

And we shouldn't pretend Trek ever did anything but play it safe. Sure, they had a nicely cosmopolitan crew, but even though the show had no hang ups about inter-species breeding, when Geordi finally got to make out with an alien, it was still a black alien.


*That the episode was more about transgenderism, and loving someone regardless of gender change, actually made it an impressively brave episode to run, and it wasn't even as preachy as Star Trek so often is.

I think we have discovered the best reason to be a space sailor instead of a regular sailor: no seamen jokes.

I think a flamingly gay Star Trek Character would've been great. Like Daffyd from Little Britain, only less flaming. Maybe just a Pink shirt, or a Larry Dallas neck-kerchief.

Data, the gay android perhaps?

dogma wrote:Data, the gay android perhaps?

Data had sex at least once during the course of the show. Which isn't a lot, but is at least one more time than most of the show's audience...

Peter David introduced a gay Vulcan in one of his New Frontier novels, brother to Dr. Selar. Their parents were frustrated by the waste of his genetic material. Also one of his main characters is a "Hermat", possessing both male and female characteristics and using s/he and hir for pronouns. That character ends up with a female partner (Dr. Selar again, as it happens - pesky Vulcans). Though NF isn't canon, as is the way with such things, it has a lot of love (I despise tie-in fic, but David writes well enough for me to forgive).

Star Trek NG is a poor area for this. The characters in that show were so stuck no one had partners. In fact, I'm not quite sure they were human. Sure occasionally Stewart would utter something epic like "we will fight you" but that really was about it. You'd find more personality in Lord Olivier's reading of a soup can.

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe, in the future, more gay people have outgrown having to behave like flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens.

Just thinking out loud here. Maybe they just show up to Starfleet and do their jobs and not make a big deal out of it.

So you're calling all homosexuals "flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens". How homophobic of you.

In response to homosexuality in the star-wars universe i give you this
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/4/29/
also George Takei total badass i wish i could talk like that.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Susan Ivanova was openly lesbian in Babylon 5.

I don't remember it being open, I remember it being so concealed you probably wouldn't notice it if you didn't read JMS commentary, Lurker's Guide, or something similar. I didn't even realize there was supposed to be a relationship when I first watched it.

There was an episode where they were supposed to reveal one secret as part of a Membari ceremony or something. Her secret was her love for the psyker chick who's name suddenly escapes me.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe, in the future, more gay people have outgrown having to behave like flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens.

Just thinking out loud here. Maybe they just show up to Starfleet and do their jobs and not make a big deal out of it.

So you're calling all homosexuals "flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens". How homophobic of you.

What a catastrophic reading fail. There's some words in there to qualify the statement to not match your off topic strawman, if you care to look.

I personally think that its more homophobic to think that a gay crewman should be behaving like this, otherwise we wouldn't know he was gay.



Not to mention that dogma and I already cleared this up. I'd quote it, if I thought you had the grace to ever actually admit that you were talking directly out of your ass. Perhaps, in Star Trek, people in general are a bit less histrionic.

Frazzled wrote:There was an episode where they were supposed to reveal one secret as part of a Membari ceremony or something. Her secret was her love for the psyker chick who's name suddenly escapes me.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part. It was the early part where Talia wakes up and it's sort of implied that they were in the same bed that flew past me on first viewing, and that was the big scene that JMS talked up a lot.

I wish I had watched more of Babylon 5 nowadays, alas, for some reason it didn't hold my interest back then. I wonder if it's on Hulu.


That qualification doesn't really help put your statement in a better light.

Melissia wrote:That qualification doesn't really help put your statement in a better light.

"Gay or straight, constantly making a big deal out of your sexuality in a professional setting is uncivilized" is the most distilled form of what I was saying.

You didn't really succeed in saying that until just now...

Regardless, it's not like there weren't frequent romantic subplots in the various ST series. Especially later ones, for good or ill...

Melissia wrote:While I understand the reasoning, the actual statement you used confuses me-- why would it fly in the face of it?

Just having an openly gay character wouldn't fly in the face of it. Making an issue about it would.

Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it? Is actually a pet peeve of mine, the need for a gay person to 'come out'. And this stems from both sides. I couldn't give a monkies who the next person fancies. Unless it's me, in which case my interest is piqued. Unless they're a minger. In which case I'll politely decline and skulk off.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Melissia wrote:While I understand the reasoning, the actual statement you used confuses me-- why would it fly in the face of it?

Just having an openly gay character wouldn't fly in the face of it. Making an issue about it would.

Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it?

Exactly. "Openly Gay" doesn't have to mean:

Thanks guys and y'all kept it more or less on topic too.

For ST, yeah it should be no big thing who/what/how you love but ST was once cutting edge, it had the first interracial (well black and white) kiss in TV (technically I suppose Lucy and Ricky would be the first interracial kiss) with Kirk and Uhura, it was a BIG MAJOR taboo back in the day, like a hang 'em from the tallest tree taboo. And IIRC the Dax girl on girl kiss was also billed as a first.

But all that is beside the point if they've not yet had the guts to put it on camera as no big thing.

Really in the next film all you need to do is "RED ALERT, RED ALERT".

Spock stops his 3D chess game and runs.
Uhura puts down her harp thing and runs.
Sulu stops making out with a guy and runs.

Done.

For Star Wars it's a bit harder, the whole Flash Gordon pulp thing is not the most flexible framework. But you'd think they'd have something by now besides one video game character. And hey if Dr Who can do it Star Wars should.

Oh and I always figured Watto was Italian, I mean listen to that accent, that ain't Jewish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS which will we see first, a gay SW character or a gay Power Ranger?

Mr Mystery wrote:Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it? Is actually a pet peeve of mine, the need for a gay person to 'come out'. And this stems from both sides. I couldn't give a monkies who the next person fancies. Unless it's me, in which case my interest is piqued. Unless they're a minger. In which case I'll politely decline and skulk off.

It's because the default assumption is straight, and even when we believe we're open minded we frequently keep a lot of assumptions that just don't work with a gay person.

Fortunately this is getting a lot better.

It's a difficult situation, with something like 3% of the population being strictly homosexual, and a somewhat larger percentage being more or less interested in pair-bonding with members of the same sex, quite apart from those who identify as heterosexual and go to some lengths to have sex with men (the 'down-low', or the 'closet'), and those filthy stinking asexuals.

I am reminded, oddly, of the Alastair McGowan sketch with Mr Izzard as a TNG Enterprise Bridge officer - worth a google if you don't know it

Mr Mystery wrote:Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it?

Why mention/show a character's heterosexuality (which is done frequently I should note) if sexuality isn't a big deal?

Ah-ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgrHF0fyAjs

C3P0

You know, I've always wondered about this aspect of Star Trek.

Many homosexuals describe their sexuality as being innate, saying things like "I was born this way." If that is true, there has to be a genetic reason behind a person's sexuality.

Assuming that is true, being homosexual is a disadvantage from a purely evolutionary perspective. Heterosexual people would pass on their genes more often than a homosexual person.

So, if you have a society where a person's sexuality is completely accepted no matter what form it takes, you wouldn't end up with homosexuals "in the closet" being socially obligated to have unhappy heterosexual relationships. Homosexual couples would be completely able to have children, but for couples choosing not to use invetro, adoption is a good option. But, adopted children don't get their parents genes.

Consider the following:
A) Sexuality is defined by genetics
B) Openly gay people pass on their genes less frequently
C) In an accepting society, no one would choose to not be open about their sexuality
D) Star Trek has a totally accepting society and has been for many generations

C+B: In an accepting society, homosexuals won't pass on their genes as often
A+above: In an accepting society, homosexuals will become a smaller proportion of the population as the genes defining homosexuality become rarer
D+above: In the Star Trek universe, there would be a very small number of homosexuals compared to our society

So, maybe by not having homosexual characters, Star Trek is actually being progressive.

I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

I've always been of the mind that homosexuality is indeed genetic, and also a believer in Darwinian principles, so that's a very odd situation.

Even a gay caveman is going to mate less often/successfully, social pressures or not. Considering the sorts of ridiculous adaptations that some animals come up with, you'd think that it'd take no time to "breed out" homosexuality.

Phryxis wrote:I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

Allow me to say what some internet geneticist is going to say any second...

"Genetics don't work like that."

Though I agree with you, Phryxis. Something genetic that is kind of a deterrent to breeding seems like it would be somewhat self-destructive over a long period of time.

Something genetic that is kind of a deterrent to breeding seems like it would be somewhat self-destructive over a long period of time.

Right, especially when it's a DIRECT deterrant to breeding.

You look at some of these birds with their crazy assed mating rituals... Like, for some birds it was worthwhile to have a REALLY big orange puffy sac on your neck that you can blow up and make strange noises with. That worked for them. But somehow simply not wanting to procreate wasn't enough to remove homosexuality from the gene pool.

Imagine the tiny evolutionary mating advantage it would be to have a SLIGHTLY bigger, stretchier throat sac. It's minimal.

Now compare that to simply not wanting to.

Strange.

Phryxis wrote:I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

I've always been of the mind that homosexuality is indeed genetic, and also a believer in Darwinian principles, so that's a very odd situation.

But it isn’t just genetics but also biology. Much of how we turn out comes from hormones given to the child in the womb, with girls getting greater doses of estrogens than boys. The theory with gay children is that the hormone mix isn’t quite right. This might possibly be enough by itself, or it could interact with certain genes, to produce homosexuality.

In general Sebster is correct. Genetics only determine so much about what a person will become. To my understanding they essentially define a possible field in which biology can operate within a given individual, and that's just before the neuroscientific ramifications of a plasticene brain.

So, even if there is a gene that allows for homosexuality, its very likely that heterosexuals carry it as well. Or so epigenetics would have it.

There's also a point that can be made regarding homosexuality as a simple preference that is acquired in life, like a special love for a certain food, or even a certain person; something wholly distinct from choice, and yet consistent with homosexuality being extra-genetic.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Watto is often also accused of being an Arab stereotype. In fact, I've heard that accusation far more than the Jewish one.

I can see merit in both arguments, but my understanding of the Arab stereotype is essentially flowing robes and the name "bin al Saud".

That may not jive with everyone else, of course.

Or they're greedy tyrannical dictators, ala the Socialist Democratic Federated Republic of Carbombya, the country so stereotypically Arab, it broke Teletraan 1!

The theory with gay children is that the hormone mix isn’t quite right. This might possibly be enough by itself, or it could interact with certain genes, to produce homosexuality.

Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

Interesting. One answer would appear to be that the "gay gene" wouldn't be selected out if it had effects that promote reproduction in women.

That's a fun one to try to google for without feeling like Hitler. "why don't gay people die out.." Er... No, how about "why aren't gay people out of the gene pool..." Ugh...

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

Phryxis wrote:Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

Except that the mix of hormones introduced might not be related to the mother at all. Diet would likely play a bigger role.

Then there's this whole epigenetics thing dogma is talking about, which describes a bunch of ideas I knew about somewhat, without ever knowing they all had such a nice sounding name.

In "Legacy of the Force" SW book series they mention a jedi on the council being a lesbian and in the newest book there is a gay mandolorian couple.

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

It's only in recent years that people have been able to be openly gay, for many years people had to get married and have children regardless of their feelings, a lot of the time people were expected to marry for a load of reasons other than love or sexual attraction. Even in ancient states that accepted homosexuality to a degree, people were expected to produce children. Even if a heterosexual man and women got married they weren't necessarily attracted towards each other, but they still got on with it, this is particularly the case with the upper classes and royalty where marriage is largely about land and financial arrangements. So the idea that "gay men don't pass on their genes" doesn't hold up across history.

From a more distant evolutionary view...if there are gay genes then they are likely to be shared by siblings and other close relatives in which case being altruistic is beneficial. By being a supportive member of a family group you can ensure that your group succeed and those you are genetically similar to will survive. Selfish gene theory explains altruistic behaviour, because the wider survival of a species does not depend upon individuals focussing solely upon procreation. There is the argument that homosexuality plays a role in social cohesion and that's party why it's expressed today. Things that are well established in large populations don't die out easily even if they are not immediately advantageous. Just because a gay person doesn't have children doesn't mean their heterosexual siblings will not, yet they will share a lot of the same genetic material.

People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool. Population and evolutionary genetics simply don't work that way, there's a much larger complex system at work especially when you draw in epigenetic and mass of variables that act upon even seemingly disadvantageous traits.

Anyway, some theories described here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0&feature=player_embedded#!

Phryxis wrote:Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

Vague misunderstandings of genetics aside, this isn't actually necessarily true. If, in fact, there is a "homosexual gene", then let's assume it's recessive. That means that, depending on how many other genes tie into it (For something so powerful as psychology, probably quite a few), it could be that the vast majority of humans are carriers for this gene, but it isn't expressed except in a rare few. Which means that many people who aren't gay are still passing on the "homosexual gene".

If, in fact, that is how it works. The gene might be identified, but that doesn't mean it is the only factor, nor does it mean that it is the only gene that ties into it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

It's only in recent years that people have been able to be openly gay, for many years people had to get married and have children regardless of their feelings, a lot of the time people were expected to marry for a load of reasons other than love or sexual attraction. Even in ancient states that accepted homosexuality to a degree, people were expected to produce children. Even if a heterosexual man and women got married they weren't necessarily attracted towards each other, but they still got on with it, this is particularly the case with the upper classes and royalty where marriage is largely about land and financial arrangements. So the idea that "gay men don't pass on their genes" doesn't hold up across history.

As well, don't forget that there are those who don't discover/realize that they're gay until later in life, many after a heterosexual marriage that has produced offspring.

In addition, current medical advances have led us to a point where sex may be removed from the equation of producing genetic offspring all together.

Except that the mix of hormones introduced might not be related to the mother at all. Diet would likely play a bigger role.

Sure, but the way that food is metabolized still has a relationship to genetics. A given person might be less likely to turn rice into estrogen than another...

Certainly this would diminish the impact of genetics, but I don't see how it could ever be eliminated.

By being a supportive member of a family group you can ensure that your group succeed and those you are genetically similar to will survive.

While I don't necessarily buy the idea that gay people are "more nurturing" I did once read a study that suggested that the more male children a women had, the more likely each successive one was to be gay. This was even true if the children didn't live together, almost as if the woman's uterus had some sort of "memory."

It might stand to reason that if you have too many heterosexual siblings running around, they might start fighting over the available ladies and kill one another, which would have negative implications for survival.

People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool.

I disagree. I realize that there are a lot of complexities to genetics, but to identify a first order evolutionary pressure as being more relevant than a second order evolutionary pressure is not "simplistic" it's accurate.

If an animal is born capable of procreation, but averse to pursue the activity, that's extremely relevant. It certainly COULD be offset by their other contributions to the family unit, but those are indirect contributions. The best thing you can do to spread your genes is make babies. Assisting your cousin to make babies helps, but it's not the same impact.

Which means that many people who aren't gay are still passing on the "homosexual gene".

Right, but there still would be a negative pressure on the gene. Let's assume that 5% of people are gay, and of those people 50% elect not to procreate. While that's certainly not stoping procreation of the vast majority of the carriers of the gene, it is still selecting it out of the population.

For me it keeps coming back to the idea that there has to be some sort of corresponding benefit. Either the "nurturing" angle that Howard A Treesong mentions, or what I think is more likely which is the idea from the link I posted, perhaps it leads to more fertile women when present in a female.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool. Population and evolutionary genetics simply don't work that way, there's a much larger complex system at work especially when you draw in epigenetic and mass of variables that act upon even seemingly disadvantageous traits.

We also have to factor in the reality that many people with homosexual tendencies are not actually homosexual. The hard division between hetero and homosexuality is very misleading.

Interestingly, this seems to be primarily the result of heterosexual people reacting aggressively to the acceptance of homosexuality. The "I could never do anything gay!" argument.

Given my observation of partying women (and fraternity brothers) in undergrad, this doesn't seem to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Right, but there still would be a negative pressure on the gene.

Not if its simply the gene that controls sexuality.

The "I could never do anything gay!" argument.

Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

I try not to let that color my opinion of actual human beings, but it's always lurking there, sorta like a fear of heights. If I look at two gay guys interacting, there's a chance it might make my brain feel a little panicky.

So, anyway, point being that I think that many men are conditioned to a point at which they're viscerally, subconsciously phobic of homosexual interactions. It makes it very unlikely that they would ever "do anything gay."

Women are not conditioned nearly as aggressively in this way.

Oh, and yes, fraternities are COMPLETELY gay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not if its simply the gene that controls sexuality.

Well, right, you don't breed a gene out of existance, so much as a manifestation of a gene.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

Most people also say that they'll never hook up with unattractive members of the opposite sex, but it definitely happens.

In fact, I don't see a meaningful distinction between sleeping with a man (who you find unattractive by category) and an unattractive woman. Well, unless we consider categorical distinctions to be emotively special. That's certainly the case intellectually, but I've never considered sexuality to be particularly intellectual.

Phryxis wrote:
I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

Yeah, I could see that. Interestingly I have the same reaction to male homosexual behavior as female, which sounds homosexual until you are informed that I don't find female homosexual behavior attractive. I'm essentially neutral to both.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, right, you don't breed a gene out of existance, so much as a manifestation of a gene.

The point of epigenetics is that characteristics like homosexuality can't be bred out. There are two schools of thought at work here, one focused on complex interactivity between genes producing chaotic iterations of behavior, and one that presumes a high degree of environmental effect on the expression of genes. In both cases a highly successful set of genes can produce negative results given a large enough number of cases.

I think one of the Death Star gunners might have been gay. The way he pulled down on that lever to destroy Alderaan with his pinky up was just a bit 3 dollar bill-ish.

Yeah, and Frats are totally gay.

Grakmar wrote:
Many homosexuals describe their sexuality as being innate, saying things like "I was born this way." If that is true, there has to be a genetic reason behind a person's sexuality.

(snip)

Star Trek however is not meant to be a realistic future, it's here to entertain (and to some extent stir debate) for us 20th C/21st C folks.

The original series was actually pretty daring putting blacks, whites, Asians and aliens as peers, they even had a filthy, dirty, lying, Russkie!

Shame they lost their nerve and now behind the times.

The crystalline entity was pretty metro.

I don't care who she may have slept with. Tasha Yar was pretty butch.

Phryxis wrote:Sure, but the way that food is metabolized still has a relationship to genetics. A given person might be less likely to turn rice into estrogen than another...

Certainly this would diminish the impact of genetics, but I don't see how it could ever be eliminated.

Sure, but once you start talking about a gene that would lead to a negative trait in only some circumstances, and consider that in other circumstances that gene might produce positive characteristics, the case for that gene disappearing from the genepool disappears very quickly.

This makes some level of intuitive sense, given that the genetic tendency towards homosexuality hasn't disappeared from the genepool.

Phryxis wrote:Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

I try not to let that color my opinion of actual human beings, but it's always lurking there, sorta like a fear of heights. If I look at two gay guys interacting, there's a chance it might make my brain feel a little panicky.

What's really odd is that reaction, which I've had myself when seeing some more heavy make out sessions from gay dudes, is likely completely cultural. If you've been overseas to non-Western parts of the world, you will see guys walking about holding hands. It's just a gesture of friendship, and while it's hilarious for us to see Bush holding hands with that Saudi dude, for them it's just a regular part of friendship between two hetero dudes.

I saw it a fair bit in India, and that's a country with a considerable amount of hostility towards homosexuality.

I saw it a fair bit in India, and that's a country with a considerable amount of hostility towards homosexuality.

Yeah, I've seen it in China, and, again, I think they're fairly down on homosexuality.

It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Phryxis wrote:I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

...I don't really agree with you there.

That's weird.

Albatross wrote:That's weird.

Yeah, I guess for some strange, culturally linked, reason I'm more comfortable with this...



...rather than this.

[Picture not available due to fear of banning]

Phryxis wrote:It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Yeah, it's just programming. What's interesting is that something that, certainly for me and I'm guessing for you as well, feels instinctive, is probably just cultural programming, given how other cultures really don't have a problem with it.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

sebster wrote:

Phryxis wrote:It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Yeah, it's just programming. What's interesting is that something that, certainly for me and I'm guessing for you as well, feels instinctive, is probably just cultural programming, given how other cultures really don't have a problem with it.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

Fear of spiders is instinctive, fear of men holding hands isn't even close. Most behavioral psychologists and a fair number of neurological studies point to the idea that the vast majority of social interactions and intrinsic social "laws" are learned behaviors that we are instinctually designed to adopt and reciprocate. Learning and obeying such unspoken behaviors is instinct, but the behaviors themselves however aren't hardwired anywhere within the human brain. It's a fairly powerful but very blank slate.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

I feel the same way, though it's unlikely because of any concept of domination. Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived. They trigger different learned behavioral responses. You've probably seen the cliche of a prostitute who won't kiss because it's how you show affection. There is a serious disconnect between a sexual act and kissing which many behavioral scientists think is a hardwired and instinctual act that shows familial affection for the purpose of exchanging disease immunities.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fear of spiders is instinctive, fear of men holding hands isn't even close.

Nah, the squeamish feeling wasn’t coming from men holding hands, that is from seeing more overtly sexual practice. The holding hands part was mentioned as an example of learned behaviour that feels very important, but is actually something that changes from culture to culture.

I was using the example to argue that the squeamish feeling over seeing homosexual activity would likely be the same.

Most behavioral psychologists and a fair number of neurological studies point to the idea that the vast majority of social interactions and intrinsic social "laws" are learned behaviors that we are instinctually designed to adopt and reciprocate. Learning and obeying such unspoken behaviors is instinct, but the behaviors themselves however aren't hardwired anywhere within the human brain. It's a fairly powerful but very blank slate.

Which is what I was saying with my example of men holding hands. It would be very uncomfortable for most men, and not something they would likely consider could just be learned behaviour. But it is.

Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived.

I’m not sure the divide is that clean. Holding hands is a form of closeness and intimacy, which leads on to increasingly intimate and sexual things.

I feel the same way, though it's unlikely because of any concept of domination. Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived. They trigger different learned behavioral responses. You've probably seen the cliche of a prostitute who won't kiss because it's how you show affection. There is a serious disconnect between a sexual act and kissing which many behavioral scientists think is a hardwired and instinctual act that shows familial affection for the purpose of exchanging disease immunities.

Interesting if true, but I'm not convinced. I've seen a whole lot of things started with casual kissing.

Nah, the squeamish feeling wasn’t coming from men holding hands, that is from seeing more overtly sexual practice. The holding hands part was mentioned as an example of learned behaviour that feels very important, but is actually something that changes from culture to culture.

I was speaking more of natural revulsion in this case, it's not 100% but even people and cultures that have never had contact with spiders or similar insects tend to fear them on an instinctual level. Once a brain develops enough to recognize one it seems to key into some sort of genetic predisposition against it.

Which is what I was saying with my example of men holding hands. It would be very uncomfortable for most men, and not something they would likely consider could just be learned behaviour. But it is.

It's fairly easy to observe that it's a learned behavior since children seem to have no aversion to it, though like with many things the act of holding hands itself is representational of a set of urges for closeness in a social group, rather then an instinctual act itself. Holding hands could very well be a very basic and intuitive but still learned act.

I’m not sure the divide is that clean. Holding hands is a form of closeness and intimacy, which leads on to increasingly intimate and sexual things.

It's not very clean in that sexual acts are often representative of emotional attachment, but kissing is not an inherently sexual act. Mothers kissing their children for instance. Our brains are not simplistic though, and their elasticity does often connect disparate acts. Whether kissing is also inherently part of the set of behaviors and acts of sex I can't say. It's probably regarded separately by the brain depending strongly on context (again, like with most things. I hate psychology because the subject is too malleable).

Interesting if true, but I'm not convinced. I've seen a whole lot of things started with casual kissing.

The brain reacts to sexual imagery differently then it does familial imagery, it is likely a learned behavior to attach kissing to the giant field of "things that make you think about sex", but then it's also a fairly intuitive on to put there. The brains a difference engine primarily, and what serves one function early in life can be learned to function another later.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's fairly easy to observe that it's a learned behavior since children seem to have no aversion to it, though like with many things the act of holding hands itself is representational of a set of urges for closeness in a social group, rather then an instinctual act itself. Holding hands could very well be a very basic and intuitive but still learned act.

Yeah, we're agreeing here.

It's not very clean in that sexual acts are often representative of emotional attachment, but kissing is not an inherently sexual act. Mothers kissing their children for instance. Our brains are not simplistic though, and their elasticity does often connect disparate acts. Whether kissing is also inherently part of the set of behaviors and acts of sex I can't say. It's probably regarded separately by the brain depending strongly on context (again, like with most things. I hate psychology because the subject is too malleable).

Yeah, kissing is definitely part of sex. I can say from experience that kissing can kick the brain into gear really quickly.

Sure, we also kiss non-sexual partners, but it is a really, really different kind of kissing.

Holding hands is routine in the western word for parents with their children, and it is also common between partners. It isn't overtly sexual, however it is not part of the normal repertoire of behaviour between adult men.

In Japan, I am not allowed to hold my wife's hand in front of her mother, because it would be too shocking.

Sure, we also kiss non-sexual partners, but it is a really, really different kind of kissing.

I know, thats what I was describing. It is also quite likely that kissing as sex is not hardwired in the way that kissing as affection or kissing as exploration (toddlers will kiss walls and things for no reason). It's either a learned process that adapts the act within the brain for such purposes or it adapts the process of sexual encounter to utilize it. Either could fit given the acts presumed significance as a method for transferring bacteria and virus' as well as immunities within the familial unit.

Either way the point of my initial post was that acts of affection and acts of sexual expression are not directly correlated when perceived, two men holding hands is culturally indicative of a romance and it's handled within portions of the brain that differentiate social situations. Views of intercourse are more likely to drift to either the sexual areas (which under CAT and similar scans are shown to have their own big regions) or new areas of difference making (so that the brain can developed learned responses to the "new" stimuli). Either way, the first path isn't the one that would go directly to the part of the brain determining taboos (Though they get there anyway). At least in my opinion this would explain the difference phryxis describes in his reaction.

I've been known to hug and kiss some of my close male friends, say, if I haven't seen them for a while. I have absolutely no problem at all with two men being affectionate with each other, straight or gay. I'm totally comfortable with it.

I find it very odd that person would be more comfortable witnessing a 'prison-rape'-type scenario....

Shuma, would you be really freaked out if I kissed you? Like, on the cheek?



...and by 'cheek' I mean 'face cheek', before anyone starts...

Melissia wrote:The reason there's no sexuality issues in Star Trek is because in the timeframe it is set in, sexuality is a non-issue anyway. This from a certain Captain Sulu.

although they didn't have any ''gay storylines'' in ST:TOS they did have some other ground breaking stuff, like one of the (if not thee) first inter racial kiss between kirk and uhura, plus having a russian (although with a hammed up accent) on the crew with the second red scare being in recent memory and the cold war still going on.

It is difficult for us to comprehend this now, but in the 50s and 60s it was illegal in most states of the USA to marry someone of a different race.

The last anti-miscegenation law in the USA was not repealed until 1967.

This is the background to the Kirk/Uhura kiss in Star Trek. It genuinely was a challenging thing to do on US TV in the late 60s.

TNG had guy crew members wearing skirts during the first season. It was never any of the main cast, but occasionally you'd see guys without pants walking around the ship in the background. Not sure if that was supposed to be pro-gay or a gender equality thing.

bbb wrote:TNG had guy crew members wearing skirts during the first season. It was never any of the main cast, but occasionally you'd see guys without pants walking around the ship in the background. Not sure if that was supposed to be pro-gay or a gender equality thing.

Gender equality I would hope. Gay men don't usually wear dresses.

I find it very odd that person would be more comfortable witnessing a 'prison-rape'-type scenario...

Well, I should put it more context...

When I was in college some people I was friends with wanted a bunch of guys to watch homosexual porn so that they could then comment on our reactions for the purpose of some paper they were writing.

So, we watched some porn, and while it wasn't exactly comfortable, it wasn't quite as squeamy is two guys kissing. I think maybe it's less about"domination" and more like Shuma is saying, if it's sexual, it's less upsetting cause people do odd things for sexual gratification, whereas real affection is more "pure" and thus more upsetting when done "wrong."

When you put it as you have, yeah, I don't think I'd be very comfortable with rape type scenarios, probably much worse than two gay guys kissing.

Altho, FWIW, the porn that we were shown in the aforementioned college experiment was a bit "coercive." It was a "hey, you have to do xyz if you want to be on the tennis team" sort of scenario, so one guy was being "coerced" by the other.

Goran and Medrit Beviin the first openly gay couple in the Star Wars novels,.

The two are Mandalorians, a culture that doesn't really give a damn what you are because even if you're straight that stuff is saved for the bedroom. The couple also have an adopted daughter, who they adopted after her mother, also a Mandalorian, was killed in the Yuuzhan Vong war

Goran is also one of Boba Fett's most trusted Lieutenants and damn near his only friend.

Khornholio wrote:The Hutts are a stereotype of my mom's side of the family.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Khornholio wrote:The Hutts are a stereotype of my mom's side of the family.

@Phryxis - Fair enough. FWIW, I am completely repulsed by the thought of two men having sex, and feel pretty squeamish about gay porn - but I don't mind seeing two blokes holding hands and kissing. Fair play to 'em!

Wonder what that says about me, though?

Also, whilst I don't have a problem with seeing two gay men holding hands, I think it's hilarious when you see two Arab men doing it!



I am SO considering using that pic as my avatar....