1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

I Want to Believe

Damon Lindelof Says Something Else About Women in Star Trek Into Darkness

“I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress. We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make light of something that some construe as mysogenistic. What I’m saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future. Also, I need to learn how to spell ‘misogynistic.’” - Star Trek Into Darkness writer Damon Lindelof in a string of four tweets sent out roughly a half hour after we posted his lackluster answer as to why actress Alice Eve was made to strip down in the film for no reason.

It’s nice to see Lindelof comment on the complaints at all, and we hope he really is more mindful of these types of things in the future but we must point out – having half naked actors in a sex scene does not equal the treatment Eve received. Again, it’s all about context and Dr. Carol Marcus was put on display with none. What do you think of Lindelof’s apology?

(via tipster commenter Eric)

Previously in Star Trek

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | | |

  • Kate A

    Would’ve helped had she had any other character to her at all. I was more interested in the various bridge crew that were shown for 3 seconds at a time than her.

  • Anonymous

    If we can’t accept apologies, there will be no reason for people to make them after they screw up. Good for him to admit he fucked up.

  • Captain ZADL

    If he hadn’t mentioned Kirk being shirtless, it would have been a good apology. But by mentioning that, it sounds like a non-apology.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, it really sounds like he’s trying to make an excuse and not really an apology.

  • Gerald Kirby

    While promising to be more mindful in the future is admirable, it would be nice if they had been mindful about it to begin with.

  • Helen Hill

    It appears to me that Mr. LIndelof is simply a lazy screenwriter…

  • Philip Lopez

    It seems legit. He didn’t use the “I’m sorry you were mad” line, which IS a non apology. Based on some other tweets he made to specific people yesterday, he seems genuinely concerned by how people are reacting. But assuming he’s not straight up lying, he seems to have heard the criticism and we’ll have to see if it changes anything for him next time. If he STILL writes in gratuitous scenes in his next one, then all bets are off.

  • Kate A

    “But a man was also shirtless! …while in bed with two nameless aliens entirely designed to be sexy. But this is equal now right?”

  • Michelle Barnett Garcia

    So are we saying it’s okay to have Kirk shirtless because he’s an man but not okay for Carol because she’s a woman … that doesn’t sound like equally.

  • Curtis Owings

    My interpretation of that scene was a bad attempt to show James and Carol’s initial attraction to each other as she should become a major influence on his life (by cannon). While “oooo, I saw her naked!” is a really poor method for explaining that attraction, I didn’t see the scene as “for no reason”–just really badly done. I wanted her to be a much more interesting character than she turned out to be.

  • Being Geek Chic

    It doesn’t change the fact that there were barely any women in any positions of power in the film. In the scenes where “important people” are gathered to meet about Harrison, there is not a single woman present. So while I accept an apology about gratuitous sex, I’m more concerned about a complete lack of women in moments when leadership is clearly present, especially since Star Trek is in the future.

  • Kate A

    Carol was shirtless for literally no reason- she decided to change her clothes unnecessarily in front of Kirk. Kirk was shirtless because he was in bed. The difference is context and reading- we’re to admire Kirk because he’s making it with hot alien babes, and he’s shirtless as an aside. We’re to admire Carol’s breasts only, since there is nothing else going on in that scene.

  • Anonymous

    It was the abuse of her consent that bothered me as much as anything in that scene. She specifically asks Kirk not to look, he does anyway expressly against her wishes, and is still the hero despite it, and it’s not commented on again.

  • Anonymous

    I just wish they would stop using the whole “it’s part of Kirk’s character!” excuse to do it. We already saw him eyeballing an officer and wake up with naked twins in his bed (and that’s the ones I remember). So I don’t see the necessity of constantly trying to make this point other than just to get some gratuitous… sleaziness. Because I sure as shit find it far from charming…

  • Kate A

    He’s a little in danger of becoming Zap Brannigan, it’s true.

    “Spock, inform the crew that I have made it with a woman.”

  • Michelle Barnett Garcia

    No, you misunderstand me. Get that there’s no reason for Carol Marcus to be in her underwear in that scene other than fan service, but there’s was also no reason to show Kirk in bed with two alien ladies half naked … we as the audience already established that Kirk is a womanizer, there was no reason for that to be on display other than again, fan service. We can’t be upset about one thing and not the other.

  • Nicole Schneekloth

    @Damon Lindelof – no need to apologize!
    Lets face it…Star Trek is catering to an audience of men who rarely see real life women stripping. Yeah, I thought it was weird this scene was in there, but then I thought it has to do with Kirk’s character development. Kirk is a PLAYA. Plus, they had to keep to tradition of having scantly clad women.

  • Myron Byron

    Yes, we can, because the two things are entirely different. Kirk had already been established as a womanizer? Fine, then the threesome scene was a storytelling misjudgment…but it was still included with a PURPOSE in mind. Alice Eve’s underwear scene had no purpose other than titillation and objectification.

  • Kate A

    I feel that the Kirk scene was in fact to further establish Kirk as a womaniser, though. It was there to show things about his character- The messy room, the Beastie Boys playing, not one but two ladies in bed! Kirk jumps out of bed anyway as his communicator rings, because despite being a bit of a slob, he loves his job.

    Carol’s scene showed us.. that she has breasts? And more than one set of clothes?

    Also the shot of Carol stood there (in a rather unnatural pose) was a longer shot that showed more of her than the rather quick shot of Kirk in bed, and guess which one was used for the trailer? Yep.

  • TKS

    In his defense, misogynistic is REALLY hard to spell. I’d and y’s everywhere.

  • Jill Pantozzi

    “Lets face it…Star Trek is catering to an audience of men who rarely see real life women stripping.”

    Really? Come on, try and not stereotype people. It’s rude.

  • Kate A

    Actually, Star Trek has a tradition of progressive characterisation and a pretty diverse fanbase!

  • Captain ZADL

    Michelle – I’m saying that it sounds like he’s making an excuse for Carol’s nakedness, rather than apologizing for it.

    Other characters’ appearances are totally irrelevant when making an apology for gratuitous nudity. The apology should have accepted responsibility for the complaint (which was done) and promise not to repeat the error (which was done). Mentioning Kirk’s nakedness (which occurs in the context of womanizing, by the way) deflects the attention away from the apology.

  • Dara Crawley

    It may not have been. It was a bit of fan service too but in a different way. It was probably viewed in the same light as the first movie “We need to sexy this up.” There was very little establishing of character through that seen. Really it could have been done in a conversation with Bones and seemed to be referenced repeatedly through the first movie. Allowin us to see Kirk was a way of “sexing up” the movie. Keep in mind these new films aren’t about Star Trek they’re about “How can we make this hip, sexy, and actiony so non-nerds would like it”

  • Patrick Hyland

    actually, I do remember in the meeting there was at least one woman who was wounded when Khan came in with the gunship.

  • Anonymous

    Eeh. That’s just the usual comedic “horny guy can’t control himself” gag at play — the real question is, who the hell would start changing right there? The whole situation was unrealistic and forced just for the gag — Damon basically admits it.

    That said, being a disrespectful letch hardly precludes a character being the hero. It just means he has imperfections. :P

  • Captain ZADL

    Agreed. The “awkward fan living in the parent’s basement” stereotype does not match anyone I hang out with, or myself. Most of my peers are married with Nerdlings of their own.

  • Elaine Lang

    Kirk shirtless didn’t feel like an objectification of Kirk, it felt like a GO BRO moment that underlined the status of women as objects for the facilitation of male pleasure and the gratification of the male gaze.

  • Kate A

    Yeah, that’s it! I was having trouble putting it into words for some reason, thanks!

  • Rob Roberson

    That’s not true. There were multiple women seated at the table of Captains right before harrison attacked Star Fleet Command.

  • Mina

    First of all, there are MANY women in the Star Trek fanbase. Secondly, the men of the fanbase are a diverse group, and I suspect if you actually looked into it you’d find that awkward guys who never see half-naked women in real life would be very much in the minority.

  • matt

    meanwhile, you put 3 of the characters in skintight outfits, no one complains about that….a woman’s in midchange and the Internet gets upset…again…thicker skin for BOTH genders….or else we’re in the Moral Strict America and I’ll move out

  • Anonymous

    And here I mistakenly thought they were catering to an audience that likes science fiction action movies. So this movie isn’t for me b/c I’ve seen a real life set of breasts? Thanks for clearing that up!

    How does someone else getting naked for NO reason whatsoever contribute to Kirks character developement?? Yeah he’s got a healthy appetite for women, but that doesn’t mean ALL women just wanna get naked when he’s around…your justification makes no sense.

  • Jack

    I do agree that, in retrospect, the scene with Carol was kind of pointless. That said, Lindelof did apologize. It may not have been perfect but at least the guy acknowledged what others saw as something that didn’t jive. A lot of people would just blow that kind of thing off.

    Another thing I feel the need to say, and I very well might be voicing the unpopular opinion but… Until I read this post, I never thought much about that scene. I consider myself pretty progressive when it comes to this sort of thing and it being offensive never crossed my mind. I’ve always lived by the “pick your battles” philosophy and I can’t help but wonder if this is one of those instances.

  • Rebekah M. Jones

    I just get the impression that JJ Abrams and Co are screaming “NO HOMO NO HOMO NO HOMO” and trying to attempt to bury slash readings as much as possible. Which, considering fangirls, is a effort in futility.

    I mean, damn. Even ToS Kirk wasn’t that much of a letch, and he has a bunch of seasons and more than one movie to get the opportunity.

  • Rebekah M. Jones

    1) We have this thing called the internet now, it’s for porn. So the chances of there being guys who have never seen a real woman stripping is nil if they want to see it.

    2) You obviously have never googled just how much of the Star Trek fan base is into Kirk/Spock. Mostly women in the online fandom.

    3) And really, all your points are barely intelligible but the fact that you are so hilariously divorced from basic facts is hilarious to me.

  • Rob Atkinson

    I think his apology masks a future possible intention.

  • Craig Pay

    Maybe we could have a couple of options on the DVD when it’s released…

    > Theatrical/misogynistic version
    > Welcome-to-the-21st/23rd century version

  • Deggsy

    Excuse me, is Damon Lindelof new to the business? has he not been writing for movies and television for over a decade? Am I to believe he wouldn’t have grasped the concept of gratuitous before now? And it’s hardly an apology, more of a, “I’m sorry if you took what I wrote as offensive”

  • Anonymous

    What apology? Are you serious? No, he didn’t apologize; he’s an asshole.

  • Aundrea Singer

    Ouch. That sounds a scary lot like, ‘it’s her fault; she was asking for it.’

  • Aundrea Singer

    I think you’re being sarcastic, right? O_O

  • ThisOnePerson


  • Anonymous

    Not at all. I’m speaking practically.

    Carol and Kirk went into the shuttle under the suggestion of having an idea for dealing with the torpedoes safely, or whatever (I forget how it was presented, exactly), and then she just up and proceeds to change in the shuttle.

    Why, exactly?

    Nothing was explained, she simply started changing her clothes, we get a funny reaction shot from Kirk, and then the next scene kicks in, showing Carol and McCoy on the surface, having taken the shuttle to open the torpedo.

    Kirk didn’t even go with them.

    It’s just a very ham-fisted moment written expressly for the titillation of the audience.

    (Disclaimer: I may be remembering things wrong — maybe I’m forgetting a clue that may change my opinion — but this is more or less how I remember it.)

  • Anonymous

    Abrams made a BAD even-numbered Trek movie! I didn’t think that was possible!

  • Life Lessons

    Good for him. :)

  • Anonymous

    If it weren’t for the joke about the word misogynistic… it might have actually been an apology….

  • Kailen Lee Mitchell

    Hell, I think it is fine. We are starting to get gratuitous strip down men in TV and movies. I like pointless sexiness if you don’t you are probably a prude. Now I will agree in the past it has been one sided. It was mostly focused on women as sex objects, but we are starting to get men up on the screens as sex objects as well. That is all good in my opinion human beings are sexy and exposing them is fun and titillating.

  • Anonymous

    I have to agree. While a pair of powerful female protagonists in a high-budget scifi film is still what I long to see, the ladies in this film did perform pivotal roles in the story.

    As a side note, I’ve seen the movie 4 times, and there were at least 3 women in the captain’s meeting (I looked every time) and one at the second security meeting that Kirk busts into. Not an awesome number, but they were still present. Yeah, so JJ? Can you make up for this by having ass-kicking lady Jedis on the big screen? I’m waiting…

  • cinemacrazed

    Does this need so much coverage? It’s irritating, but not a national incident. I think people are kind of overreacting.

  • TKS

    And they sure did have a powerful role to play in the narrative. What did they do again? Sit and die?


  • Ashe P. Samuels

    He said ‘what some construe as misogynistic’, thus putting more of the responsibility on the people who speak up and less on himself (it sounds just like when people say “Sorry you were offended!”), didn’t spell the word correctly, then joked about it.

    This apology blows.

  • Monmonmon

    yeah, I remember seeing one woman lying on the floor hurt in that scene, and she was showing a lot of thigh. But I guess that’s just what their uniforms are like.

  • Aeryl

    Kirk is a skeevy peeping tom, who violated Marcus’ boundaries. You know, the joke in ST’09, with him peeping on Uhura, I let it slide, because hey it could happen?? I guess, I mean I’ve never been so ashamed of sex that I forced my partner to hide, but maybe it happens. This movie has now established that THIS IS WHAT KIRK DOES!!! He’s a skeevy misogynist who is INCAPABLE of respecting a woman’s boundaries.

    And this whole “joke” that geek men don’t get laid so all geeky stuff must cater to their sexual depravity, needs to FUCKING stop.

    If men, who also happen to be geeks, aren’t getting laid, it AIN’T because their geeks, but because, like other men who don’t get laid, they are repulsive to the women around them.

    I’m a GEEK GIRL, I’ve slept with lots of GEEK GUYS. Know who I haven’t slept with? Asshole guys who feel entitled to sexual gratification. Know what ENCOURAGES men to feel entitled to sexual gratification? Objectification of women.

    You want to cure a symptom by prescribing the disease.

  • Aeryl

    Wow!! Rape apologia in a thread about a movie! That didn’t take long.

    Kirk established that he is a regular violator of personal boundaries. And you’ve established that YOU ARE PERFECTLY OKAY WITH THAT!!

    Think about that.

  • Aeryl

    No matter what reason may be behind a woman’s need/desire to change clothes, decent people don’t ogle someone when expressly requested not to.

    And the fact that she may have laughed it off, doesn’t retroactively make it OK!! I’ve been ogled too, and I laugh uncomfortably, and think “Do I raise a fuss? Is it worth my job? Do I laugh, or let him know it’s not funny?”

  • Aeryl

    No, you get a clue about the BS women deal with every fucking day, that this movie has puts its stamp of approval on, and how it perpetuates the same BS.

  • Aeryl

    50% of the population, only 6% of representation in Federation Command, I’d better fucking shut up, or we’ll never get equality.

  • Anonymous

    Just a couple off the top of my head, Underworld and Aeon Flux.

  • Anonymous

    Take a step back and look at the words you wrote. Read them to yourself. And then ask yourself why I’m not even going to bother wasting time engaging you in conversation.

    And then, ask yourself how many others have you turned away by calling them rape apologists, or something similar.

    Way to go, ace. Way to help change the world.

  • Aeryl

    I know exactly why you won’t engage with me, because it’s an absolute waste of BOTH our times, because you have absolutely no desire to self-reflect and think about the fact that you called a GROSS violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy, an action that affirms the idea the men are irrational beasts who are incapable of self control when around an attractive woman, an idea one of the biggest contribution to our rape culture, a comedic gag.

    I have absolutely no problem with the fact that I have repelled rapists and their abettors and allies with my forthright truthfulness. You might want to ask yourself why you think I would like to attract rapists, their abettors and allies?

    If only I weren’t such an asshole, we’d have equality already(I’VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE!!! DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF YOUR STERLING WIT TO SHARE?)

  • Katy

    Let’s keep in mind that Kirk was shown in his underpants with TWO scantily clad female aliens in a completely unnecessary scene to the plot of the film. Likewise, it would have been so easy to change Alice Eve’s scene to remove the gratuitous underwear scene, simply have Kirk turn and peek, but keep the camera on Chris Pine’s face and not Alice Eve’s body. Chris Pine is a very talented actor, I’m sure he could have come up with a facial expression that would have implied what Carol Marcus was doing without having to show what she was doing. Sometimes implication and expression is more humourous and sexy than showing.

  • Anonymous

    one more reason not to see this movie. i was already disappointed with the lack of adequate women representation in the first movie – moving so far way from the original Trek visions of a diverse universe. i expected the second movie to be worse, and hoped to be disappointed. no reason now to pay money to see it.

  • Anonymous

    Swing and a miss and you hit the queen, old sport.

  • Aeryl

    Because he is HER boss, and if she said shit, she could get fired.

    Her not getting VISIBLY upset is the only realistic thing about the whole scene, because women have to swallow THAT SHIT every fucking day.

  • Anonymous

    It’s worse, actually: Kirk isn’t actually her boss. He’s captain of the ship she stowed away on. He could have her imprisoned.

  • EnochLight

    Oh good grief – there was a reason she stripped down – as Kirk snuck a peek – only reaffirming his character. She was putting on a suit for the next scene and needed to do it quickly. Not to mention, obviously in the original Trek universe she fathered his child, etc.

    Into Darkness was fantastic, and there were scenes with Chris Pine equally stripped down. People have to get over their prudish selves and stop being such a wuss.

    It’s not like we were watching T’Pol and Tucker grease eachother up in their undies just to “disinfect” from an away mission…. ;^p

  • Anonymous

    Im getting fed up of excess nudity and fucking in all film/tv. I’ve stopped watching things because of it. Once you realize why its really there its irritating.

  • Aeryl

    What Kirk did affirmed rape culture narratives about how an individual’s boundaries deserve no respect if a man’s sexual desire on the line. It reaffirmed a lot of things about this incarnation of Kirk, NONE of them good things we want in our heroes.

    Now, before this gets derailed by a totally pointless discussion of flawed heroes, heroes can ONLY qualify as flawed, if those flaws are pointed out within the text.


  • Aeryl

    Apparently she had snuck aboard the shuttlecraft. If she was openly walking around the vessel wearing the SUPERjumpsuit she had to change into, that would have tipped people off as to what she was about to sneak off and do.

    So no, she couldn’t have changed aboard the Enterprise.

    And again, that’s completely fucking irrelevant. If ANY person says, don’t look at me, I’m changing, you fucking respect that. FULL STOP.

  • Dave

    Chief cause of partial nudity in the reboot: women getting ambushed in their underwear.

    Chief cause of partial nudity in the original series: James T. Kirk, destroyer of uniform shirts.

    They can’t even properly update gratuitous skin.

  • FromGeekosystem

    You can really tell the weeks when there is no new congressional scandal in the news to talk about.


    It was a great movie. Now that you mention it that scene did bring little to it other then a half chuckle heard in the theater.

  • Lee Mejia

    I don’t hear anything like “gratuitous” when people comment on how shirtless Stephen Amell is in every episode of Arrow, which is a lot more than the number of times Alice Eve or any woman is unclothed in Star Trek. I understand that sexism and mysogyny exists in Hollywood but if complaints and comments are going to be made it should be made on both sides not just for women.

  • Anonymous

    Because women in film and TV have been objectified since there’s been film and tv. Only recently would they give the women some fanservice. So it’s not an equal ground and ALL. Also Shirtless Arrow sounds more along the lines of “Showing off how MANLY he is to all the dudes” than any fanservice.

  • Anonymous

    We have EVERY right to be upset. No we’re not being prudish. We’re just sick and tired of seeing women being looked at rather than heard. This has happened since tv and movies have been around. Men haven’t. It’s not the same. And it’s exhausting.

    We’ve already reaffirmed Kirk’s character by having him eyeball a fellow officer not 15 minutes into the film then lying in bed with a pair of naked twins 5 minutes before that! How many times are we going to objectify fellow officers to ‘reaffirm’ Kirk’s character. It’s not charming. It’s “the creepy guy in the bar you want to run away from”.

  • Sketkh Williams

    Myron, based on Kirk Being a womanizer, Marcus asked him to turn around, and he looked, therefore we as the audience looked too. It was also 2 seconds and nearly forgotten in a blockbuster movie where others have done much worse. Now let’s talk about Pain and Gain.

  • Aeryl

    The thing you are ignoring, is the purpose behind BOTH those scenes.

    Why is Kirk in bed with two women? To score BRO points with the male audience.

    Why is Kirk peeping on a woman, in violation of her request not to? To score BRO points with the male audience.

    Neither of those things were done with women’s gratification. So again, it’s not a double standard, it’s the same sexist misogynistic standard.

  • Melissa Spero

    We’re conveniently forgetting that she is an Admiral’s daughter. Not just any admiral, but the admiral who is in charge of Kirk’s commission. She DOES have implied power over him, if not directly. And while I don’t like the idea that her power is derived through a paternalistic figure, it is still power.

  • Betty Windsor

    Ignorance. I’m sorry, sir but you show ignorance. Don’t assume that I give a crap about seeing Arrow’s abs every 5 seconds, because that is not what is attractive to me in a partner. And believe it or not there are men who would prefer to NOT see gratuitous female nudity in films. It is bad on both accounts for people to be objectified but it makes it even worse when she is being objective and is already such a small and relatively unimportant character in a terribly written, and copied film

  • Karen Miller

    You are a rock star. The objections have nothing to do with the fact she’s stripped down, and everything to do with the context of said action. And, most importantly, the fact which many folk are pretzeling themselves to avoid: she asked him not to look. He ignored her and looked anyway. Whether they meant to or not, the Trek team shouted loud and clear: what a man wants trumps a woman’s right to control her own body and how/when/where it is displayed. And they should bloody well know better.

  • Anonymous

    Anybody remember that “scene” from the Deep Blue Sea (with the sharks)? Yeah, talk about a repeat.

  • Seanna Tucker

    Can I point out that, as a woman, I know how to change without taking all of my clothes off?

  • Mandy

    Also, this is a small thing, but was it just me or was every single woman character in a skirt? Like, even backround character walking around. Did anyone else notice this? Does Starfleet dresscode not allow pants for women in the future?

  • Ashten Williamson

    A lot of people will good intentionally be like, “You can’t complain about the actress being half naked and not the actor.” But that’s a false equivalency, because men don’t have a history of oppression and marginalization based on their gender and being perceived as sex objects rather than people.

  • fsda

    Are people really complaining about this?!

  • Constance

    When Kirk strips down, he’s a manly man. When any woman strips down, she’s nothing more than hetero-male fan-service.

  • Clara Zawadzki

    No, it’s not an equal situation…and that’s because the two instances of nudity are not at all equal. This video explains it very well, I think:

  • Clara Zawadzki

    Actually, as Abrams has already stated that it is his intent to cater to “movie fans,” NOT “Star Trek fans,” that doesn’t hold water. Besides, what attracted most of the real Star Trek fans to the show was heart and philosophy of the show–the spirit of which is completely contravened by this shallow, self-acknowledged sexism. So either way, I don’t see your argument.

    And I can tell you as an avid Star Trek fan, Kirk’s brand-new reputation as a “playa” is not at all accurate. True, he had a thing for the ladies, but it wasn’t some sort of self-centered male conquest for him as it seems to be for this new Kirk. He showed respect for each woman he encountered as a person, not just a potential sex exploit. Also, the females he hit off with generally had strong, fully fleshed-out ideals and interests (think Gillian Taylor, Edith Keeler, the REAL Carol Marcus)– the attraction really went far beyond the nice exteriors. This whole notion of needing to make him out to be a live-it-up stud does not at all reflect the real Kirk.

    This is what really bugs me most–they are blaming this tasteless and completely uninspired writing on “Kirk’s characterization,” when I can assure you that Gene himself would be appalled at the way Kirk is being portrayed. I know Abrams is trying to create something different from the original to attract a wider audience, but to completely trample on the enduring spirit of the show to do so is just intolerable.

  • Clara Zawadzki

    “Not to mention, obviously in the original Trek universe she fathered his child, etc.”

    Yeah, and in the original universe she would have given him shit for looking when she clearly did not consent. If you’re going to cite canon, you are going to have to do a lot more research than that.

    And it’s not a matter of being prudish. Most of us here have no problem with female nudity–in the right context, it can even be empowering. The key is CONTEXT. There is a big difference between having a female character in revealing clothing because she is in control of her body and asserting her right to her own sexuality, and having her displayed EXPLICITLY AGAINST HER WILL, showing that she has absolutely NO sexual agency. Which brings me to Kirk’s nudity–HIS display was completely (and might I add, gratuitously) of the former sort, which makes it actively empowering, not disempowering. So no, there is no comparison, and the fact that the writer brought that as a rationale only highlights his insensitivity.

  • Clara Zawadzki

    “Not to mention, obviously in the original Trek universe she fathered his child, etc.”

    Yeah, and in the original universe she would have given him shit for looking when she clearly did not consent. If you’re going to cite canon, you are going to have to do a lot more research than that.

    And it’s not a matter of being prudish. Most of us here have no problem with female nudity–in the right context, it can even be empowering. The key is CONTEXT. There is a big difference between having a female character in revealing clothing because she is in control of her body and asserting her right to her own sexuality, and having her displayed EXPLICITLY AGAINST HER WILL, showing that she has absolutely NO sexual agency. Which brings me to Kirk’s nudity–HIS display was completely (and might I add, gratuitously) of the former sort, which makes it actively empowering, not disempowering. So no, there is no comparison, and the fact that the writer brought that as a rationale only highlights his insensitivity.

  • Ernie

    In the Gene Roddenberry universe, *men* wear skirts too!

    It’s too bad he’s dead now.

  • me notyou

    Take some Midol and get over it.

  • Anonymous

    “Made to strip down”?
    Jesus, a bit overdramatic.

  • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

    It was just a badly written gag.

    There’s any number of entertaining, story-appropriate ways to get attractive characters to get naked or near-naked. You don’t need something as involved as being captured by Jabba the Hutt to need to get undressed every now and then in a space adventure.

    “Turn around and don’t look because I’m changing” is like something out of an old cartoon or an I Love Lucy sketch. Except even the cartoons and I Love Lucy did it funnier and less obviously. Plus what does it say about Kirk’s character? Would a popular ladies man really freak out like a 12 year old boy at that very thought of exposed boobs behind him? Would people even care about someone watching them change in the 23rd century?

    Showing us hot people undressed isn’t a crime. The bad writing was. Like, through the whole movie…