Skip to main content

Dictating Love


This following paragraph is the YouTube description of the video embedded above.  I felt it was a masterful explanation, so I have quoted it verbatim.

"The Outcast" is a 5th season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation first broadcast on March 16, 1992. Commander William Riker (played by Jonathan Frakes) falls in love with Soren who is a member of an advanced, humanoid alien race called the J'naii. The J'naii are an androgynous species that views the expression of any sort of male or female gender, and especially sexual liaisons, as a sexual perversion. According to their official doctrine, the J'naii had evolved beyond gender and thus viewed the idea of male/female sexuality as primitive. Those among the J'naii who viewed themselves as possessing gender were ridiculed, outcast, and forced to undergo "psychotectic therapy" - a psychological treatment to remediate gender-specificity and allow acceptance back into J'naii society. When the affair between Riker and Soren is discovered, J'naii diplomats force Soren to undergo this therapy. When Riker beams down to the planet to rescue her, she has already undergone the therapy. She refuses to go with him, claiming that she is happy now, and that she was sick during her affair with Riker. She apologizes to him for his feelings of love toward her. Riker remains unconvinced of the righteousness of the procedure. This episode contains obvious allusions to the debate over homosexuality in our own world. The conclusion of the episode does not espouse one point of view over the other but instead allows the viewer to decide whether being forced to undergo therapy was right for Soren. Although many Star Trek fans were pleased to witness the Star Trek franchise tackling complex gender and sexuality issues, others felt that the episode was incongruous with Star Trek's legacy of controversially presenting an egalitarian, prejudice-free future society. Jonathan Frakes, notably commented that the episode wasn't "gutsy" enough and that "Soren should have been more evidently male". In fact, while the J'naii actors were all female, Frakes thought there should have been male actors, including Soren's character. Many felt that the episode did not adequately condemn J'naii society and that Star Trek had faltered given the opportunity to condemn modern societal prejudice in the same way it had confronted societal racism in Star Trek: The Original Series.

Oh, how I wish I was old enough to understand these concepts when I watched this show as a child.  I may not have ever even seen this episode, I'm not sure.  I know I watched several episodes with my family, but I don't recall any in particular.  Anyway, there were several key arguments that this episode made that stuck out to me.  The one that I found most poignant was Soren's argument at her diatribe.  She points out that she has not hurt anyone, and that the tribunal has no place to dictate how people should love.

Sadly, our country, and the whole human race, has a legacy of dictating to people how and whom they should love.  For a long time, it was not legal in our country for a white person and a black person to marry.  There was a time when gay people had to keep their relationships secret merely to preserve their own lives.  There was a time when it was common to send gay people to reparative therapy, to help them and make them become straight.  There are still places in the USA where this is practiced.  But, unlike Star Trek portrayed in the above clip, such efforts have never been successful at anything other than creating psychological problems for the patients.

I was personally disappointed to see how the episode ended--that Soren had been "cured" and Riker had to live with the broken heart.  However, to me it is an indicator of how people's hearts are broken when they are asked to pretend to be straight when they are in fact not.  I know of people who are gay who lived "that lifestyle" and then, upon being converted to a religion (Mormonism, in every case I am personally acquainted with), they sever their relationship with the parter they were with.  I'm sure this hurts both people in the relationship.  How is it helpful--how is it compassionate--to break up lovers like this?  How is it loving to tell someone not to love?  It is cruel, heartless, and hurtful.

Don't dictate how people should love.  Don't dictate whom people should love.  If love is happening, simply admire it and appreciate it.  There is enough hurt and conflict in the world.  Let love bloom.  Let it take root.  Let it happen.  Let it shine.  Do not stifle the light and love that beams from another person's heart.  Embrace it and admire it.

Comments

  1. Love this episode and also there is a great Deep Space Nine episode where Dax's falls in love with another woman which is taboo not because they would be lesbians but because they were previously associated. Amazing episode.


    I have been taking a little vacation from writing my "real" book, The Nerve Whisperer but I am almost finished with a book (4000 words or so) of LGBT narrative poetry if anyone is interested in previewing it and giving me feedback. Already sent it off to a few people (thanks). This is the summary: 1852 Great great grandmother born Mormon in Salt Lake City, Utah; 1957 Kimberly born at Utah Valley hospital; 1978 Kimberly serves as a Mormon missionary in Japan; 1981 Comes out as a Lesbian (to herself and girlfriend only); 1982 Graduates Brigham Young University; 1988 Authors a chapter in Guide to Gracious Lesbian Living signing only her first name; Lots and lots of stuff; 2012 Living an amazing life; May 2012 Enters an LGBT poetry writing contest and writes a short book of poetry, Live Like Someone Left The Gate Open. (Fractals at juno dot com)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Anyone is allowed to comment on this blog. As you can tell from reading my blog, I am very opinionated and I'm not afraid to share my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me as mildly or vehemently as you like, but be aware that I will reply with my own opinions, very strongly. If you don't want that kind of open discussion, or you think it will hurt your feelings, then please avoid posting. I do try to be respectful, but my verbology often comes across as brusque.

Popular posts from this blog

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

The fundamental theorem of atheism

I think many times, with all the discussion of religion, science, atheism, etc, it can be easy to lose sight of the real purpose of what one is trying to accomplish.  Of course, this can happen in any discussion.  But, one of those ever-famous text-images found on Facebook caught my attention today.  (I do think it's funny, but from what I have seen a basic fact about human psychology, that people are more likely to read text when it is in an image--even if the image is purely text--than when it is just simply written text.  I wonder if they've done any studies on that.) So, to bring my own focus back to where it should be, here is what I will call the "fundamental theorem of atheism".  Yes, that's a very mathematical title--every branch (and sub-branch) of mathematics has a "fundamental theorem".  So, here it is for atheism.   The burden of proof lies on those who claim that there is a god to produce evidence of its existence .  So, here's the ima