Was James T. Kirk over-sexed or suffering from sexual addiction for his century or just a typical man suffering from toxic masculinity that apparently there will be no cure for in the 23rd century?
The sexual revolution may have had something to do with Kirk's somewhat lecherous nature. Star Trek may have been trying to appeal to a younger, more sexually aware audience.
Although, his nature continued with the revised franchise that started in 2009. Remember him making it with the green chick? I wonder if different species, although obviously humanoid, would really be attracted to each other? Of course in the 2009 movie, Spock and Uhura were attracted to each other, but Spock is half-human.
Important to remember that engaging Science Fiction as a predictive medium is a rather fruitless venture. Science Fiction is never really about the future, not at its core. It's inextricably linked to the author's present moment. When we look back at aged Science Fiction from the 50's and 60's, where the stories are set in our present (which would have been the author's future), very rarely are the themes, concerns, and concepts remotely related to what we actually experience now. Those stories written in the 50's and 60's are about the 50's and 60's - their futuristic settings notwithstanding - passed through the distorting lens of Sci-Fi, in order to focus in on particular ideas. Captain Kirk is/was a man living in a world fraught with the engagement of "the other". To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before. In many ways, that was the very core of the 50's and 60's when social order was going through profound change, but not quite enough change at that point to take away Kirk's unearned privilege card, with which he enjoys sexual access to a galaxy.
It's the 23rd century, please don't apply your prudish 20th century standards. Maybe Kirk was just a self actualized person that found great emotional fulfillment in being intimate with other people and felt no shame about that aspect of his personality because it's not really something that people should be ashamed of. And BTW, Picard got way more action than Kirk ever did.
I think Star Trek fans wanted to see the characters behave the way they did in the original show, and Abrams wasn't interested in making many alterations. He was all about extracting storylines from the original series after all. But even though Kirk was a little smarmy from my point of view, I don't see how his actions were objectionable since his encounters with women seemed consensual -- at least from what I can remember.
Kirk was simply a projection of Gene Roddenberry, who was noted for being a man with, shall we say, a large sexual appetite. In his ideal of the 23rd century, all men would be like him and still find a place in respectable society. And all women would be dressed as the women in the series were dressed, as provocatively as possible. (One wonders what he would have done if his costumers hadn't been restrained by NBC's censors.)
Yeah, Kirk is very much a product of the creators perspective on the times. I loved the out-of-the-box-stuffed-back-into-the-box cool ideas for the settings and stories and prompts, but the show was as hilariously campy as the Batman show.
I've seen this debate before, and I'm not going to go beyond the googling and check the primary sources, but according to this, Captain Kirk had between four and seven sexual partners. Rachel from Friends, on the other hand, had 15.5 per this analysis, and even Ross had fourteen. Adult film actress Lisa Sparks (sic), on the other hand, holds the record for having sex(ual contact) with 919 men in a twenty-four hour period. (Links are SFW-ish, no nudity, but they do discuss the number of sexual partners people have had, check with HR first)
My girlfriend thinks I'm weird; I'm asexual, but can be quite amorous and erotic; we're both trying to figure me out, lol!
I'm tired of listening to the gaggle debate over alphabet soup. Is asexual a physical thing? Just curious for an actual answer. Regardless, Sensuality, brother - oh, yeah. We're talking not a whole different book, we're talking a whole different Library! Get into that, and get lost in that! Talk about release! Erotic? Yeahw huh! ETA Ever had a hair-gasm? Phew!
Asexuality basically means 'without sexual desire'. But, it's a spectrum that includes those with libidos but without definitive orientation. So, essentially, I have a girlfriend for mutual companionship, but I'm not sexually attracted to her, and she's fine with that. I do have intense desire, however; so it's a rather complex and intriguing relationship, lol!
Hmm... that story, TC, eventually becomes about intimacy and sensuality as the actual bond. So, now I'll be bugging you for perspective.
