Just for the record, I always assumed Sulu was gay. That was a lot more fun than assuming Kirk and Spock were lovers.

Meta
Title:	Just for the record, I always assumed Sulu was gay. That was a lot more fun than assuming Kirk and Spock were lovers.
Creator:	David Gerrold
Date(s):	2016
Medium:	onlin3
Fandom:	Star Trek
Topic:
External Links:	Just for the record, I always assumed Sulu was gay., Archived version
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Just for the record, I always assumed Sulu was gay. That was a lot more fun than assuming Kirk and Spock were lovers. is a 2016 Facebook post by David Gerrold.

While the essay's topic and comments discuss Sulu's sexuality, they are equally focused on Kirk/Spock (TOS) fanfiction, the misguided women who think about that relationship and create fanworks, and very disparaging comments about Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath (referred to only by the initials "M" and "C").

At times, the essay is unclear on whether "they" refers to Marshak and Culbreath, or to women in general who create slash fanworks.

The vast majority of comments support Gerrold's views, which makes sense, as it is his Facebook page.

Some Topics Discussed in Gerrold's Essay

• Sulu's sexuality
• Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath and their "deliberate subversion of the Trek universe"
• Marshak and Culbreath's personal behavior
• Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath's pro Star Trek novels, mainly The Price of the Phoenix and The Fate of the Phoenix
• Gerrold uses and explains the use of the disparaging term fubba-wubba: "fat ugly broad with unbelievably bad attitude"
• Gerrold's stated expertise and insider knowledge of what Star Trek is really about
• hurt/comfort: " In their view, male homosexuality had a lot of hurt-comfort in it. One gets hurt, the other comforts, it turns into love, they jump into bed. Um, no -- that's not love, that's a variation on Stockholm Syndrome. It's the patient falling in love with the doctor or the nurse."
• Gene Roddenberry's authorial intent, and how fans who speculate and create fanworks (especially slash) are "scratching their initials into someone else's furniture"
• slash and Kirk/Spock fiction as being out of character and well as not "really gay"
• females writing about experiences they can never have
• some mansplaining about slash fanfiction
• Gerrold's disgust and horror that slash fiction has spread and now exists in other fandoms!
• sure, gay men can watch shows and speculate that characters are gay (Gerrold lists several fandoms), and he himself has done this, but Kirk and Spock are apparently off-limits
• Gerrold has at least three objections to Kirk/Spock fanworks: 1) "First, these weren't the characters that Gene Roddenberry had created." 2) "[Marshak and Culbreath] were bullying other fans with the idea that their interpretation was the only possible interpretation of who Kirk and Spock really were and what Star Trek fandom was really about. " and 3) "...[Marshak and Culbreath] projection of how homosexual men behaved was so far removed from the actual experience of gay men that it was as inaccurate as straight men writing lesbian porn."
• the speculation that there were deleted or "lost" chapters to the pro books, ones which Gerrold described as "pornographic"
• Gerrold's view that slash was an attempt by women to co-opt the homosexual and lesbian experience
• slash is a "subset of fanfic and in the hands of a talented practitioner, it can be a lot of fun."
• since Sulu tries to sexually assault Uhura in the Mirror, Mirror episode of Star Trek: TOS, this is evidence that Sulu was straight
• "I can pretty much understand why millions of Trek fans want to know that gay people are included in the Trekverse. And the idea that it's Sulu -- that's a recognition of George Takei's honesty. Sulu was never closeted -- we just didn't know until now."

From the Post

... back in the early 70s when the Star Trek phenomenon was still gathering itself together, there was a group of women who liked to fantasize that Kirk and Spock were lovers, and they pretty much invented slash fiction. ie. K/S.

Now -- some of those women were pretty good people, and I still have affection for them. But there were two -- I am going to introduce a term here. It's not mine, and I do not use it ever. I am reporting it. The term is FUBBA-WUBBA. It's a term I heard in fandom. It stands for "fat ugly broad with unbelievably bad attitude." The term was invented to describe two women in particular. (As it was told to me.)

One of these women, I'll call her M, had written a doctoral-length thesis explaining the planet Vulcan and especially Spock. She sent a copy to Gene Roddenberry, who appreciatively replied, "Gosh, you've sure done a lot of typing. I applaud your enthusiasm." She had the letter sealed in plastic, put it in the first page of her extraordinarily large binder of documents and waved it under the nose of any unwary fan who got too close. "See, Gene has authorized me to be the expert on Spock."

Her partner in Grime, I'll call her C, accosted me in the con suite of the very first Star Trek convention I ever attended and said, conspiratorially, "Let me tell you what you Star Trek writers don't understand about Kirk and Spock...."

Okay, I'm arrogant. I was trained by Gene Roddenberry, Gene L. Coon, Dorothy Fontana, two editions of the Writer/Director's Guide, with additional input from Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy -- so I figured I probably knew as much about the characters of Kirk and Spock as anyone else who'd written dialog for them.

Before I could stop her, C backed me into a corner, lowered her voice to a whisper and said, "Kirk secretly wants to be homosexually raped by Spock..."

"Uh," I said. "Well, that will certainly be a change for him..." Then I gnawed off a leg and escaped.

Okay, look -- M's letter and insistence that she was the authority on Spock, did not endear me to her. Dorothy Fontana is the authority on Spock. She wrote more about Spock than any other Trek author and Leonard Nimoy loved her work.

C's assertion ... well, no.

In the several years that followed, M&C fully earned the obligatory epithet of FUBBA-WUBBA by the way they treated other fans. They assumed ownership of the entire K/S phenomenon and proceeded to chase any fan holding a divergent view out of fandom. They did it in the social media that predated the internet -- the fanzine , they did it by creating hoax identities that abused and degraded anyone they chose as an enemy . At one point, they even told a 16 year old gay man that he could not write K/S stories because he didn't understand male homosexuality.

They did eventually co-write a Star Trek novel. One chapter of it was distinctly pornographic. That was the chapter they left out when the book was published, but which they privately distributed. To me, that was deliberately unprofessional -- a kind of deliberate subversion of the Trek universe. (That their book was published was their claim to additional credibility in fandom.)

This was the decade that was immediately post-Stonewall, when the lesbian and gay communities were still struggling with the very definition of "gay" and what it meant to be homosexual. That these women were setting themselves up as the defining authorities of what is a uniquely male experience was ... well, annoying as hell.

Men do not understand the lesbian experience. Men do not have the physiology, the emotional context, or the ability to have a female orgasm. Likewise, women do not understand the male-male experience.

Eventually, M&C faded away. I have no idea where they went, why they went, or even if they're still alive. (And I hope the term FUBBA-WUBBA goes with them. It annoys me just to report it, but it's part of the story.)

Meanwhile the K/S phenomenon lives on. It has also spread throughout the fanfic community as "slash" fiction, where two characters, usually male, are postulated as having a homosexual affair. Slash fiction has been written in the LOTR universe, in the Potterverse, in the Game of Thrones world, in Galactica, in Stargate, in Sherlock Holmes, and elsewhere.

It's a subset of fanfic and in the hands of a talented practitioner, it can be a lot of fun.

Myself, I think there should be gay characters in Star Trek. I hadn't considered the possibility until a fan brought up the question in October of 1986 and Gene Roddenberry, in front of an audience of 3000 people, said that "yes, it's time to include gay people in Star Trek." And he got enthusiastic applause from the audience. When he said it, I realized he was right -- I also recognized that it was going to be a problem... How big a problem, I didn't realize until later, and that's another story.

I won't speak for other gay men, but I don't think it's uncommon for young gay men -- or even us oldpharts -- to sit through a movie or a TV show without unconsciously deciding which character might be gay or bi. There is always that speculation, which Beatle, which Monkee, which one of MacMurray's three sons, which member of the CSI or NCIS team, and why Mulder never jumped Scully's bones...so yeah, I went through those first three seasons of the original series, looking at Sulu as the gay member of the Enterprise crew. And a couple of the regular stand-ins too....

So, yeah -- I can pretty much understand why millions of Trek fans want to know that gay people are included in the Trekverse. And the idea that it's Sulu -- that's a recognition of George Takei's honesty.

Sulu was never closeted -- we just didn't know until now.

Excerpts from the Comments: Gerrold's Post

Topic: General

[BearHeart Weinman]: That was fun to read!

[Jason Bennion]: Thanks for this perspective, David. I always loved your essays on Star Trek back in the old Starlog magazine, as well as your books on the subject. I know you've got a lot of other things you want to do, but I would love to read another book on the subject... your memories and perspective on the early days, like this piece, your thoughts on where the franchise has gone in its later years, and of course your side of what went down on TNG. For what it's worth, you'd have one guaranteed sale here.

[Martin Magee]: Beautifully, written, and an aspect of fandom which can sometimes alienate and push away other fans so they don't get touched by the crazy.

Topic: Culbreath, Marshak, and FUBBA-WUBBA

[Glen Adam Garcia]: Well written and well said, sir. It saddens me that individuals with such a mindset exist in any set or subset of fandom.

[Jason Bennion]: Oh, and thanks for explaining "FUBBA-WUBBA" too. I've heard the term but didn't know what it was. I'd never use it myself... but I have however encountered people who fit the definition. The phenomenon isn't limited to Star Trek fandom.

[Ken Burnside]: FUBBA-WUBBA was still an extant term in fandom as recently in my hearing as of 2003. And properly descriptive in the case that I recall.

Personally, I prefer the term "neurotic drama queen who's lodged herself into a position of authority and won't let ANYONE forget it." and figure they're compensating for an adolescence and early 20s that were hellish.

And then do what everyone else does and stop showing up at their events.

[Lisa Sponaugle]: Oh I ran into a bunch of these disturbing people in the mid-80s. They had a creepy point in time when they struck me as culty porno peddlers. Eww.

[CV Virtue]: As a large woman who isn't conventionally attractive, I appreciate your gloss on the term. Thankfully, I've never heard it "live" but now I'll know it when I see it.

[Dave Thompson]: Ok, I had this vision of Jabba the Hut in a blonde wig when you described those women.

[Helen Erwin Schinske]: Why does fubba-wubba have to be part of the story at all? I think that's just gratuitous nastiness.

[Cerah Joselet]: Star Trek exists in and is in some ways a product of a culture that also excels in gratuitous nastiness. I took David at his word, though it is problematic as hell.

[Helen Erwin Schinske]: If he'd been talking about "hey, there was a lot of gratuitous nastiness in the old days, here's an example," that would have made sense. But he was talking about his own anger toward and dislike of these women, so repeating the insult is just a way of using it while trying to keep his own hands clean.

[Caroline Farrow]: Ugh Tumblr is full of FUBBAWUBBAs and they all ship Johnlock and accuse anyone else who doesn't as being homophobic and heteronormative and they insist that their slash is canon. As far as I could tell other fandoms weren't that bad but it drove me right off Tumblr. For the rudeness and horribleness of some of these people I am describing I will use [the term FUBBA-WUBBA] once here. It's not something I am bringing in to my lexicon, my point was the attitude never left, it lives on in the Internet in the hearts and minds of a new crop of self righteous assholes.

[Doug Clark]: I know exactly who David's talking about, and those two are in my personal lexicon next to the phrase "fandom horror story."

[Donald Gillikin]: David is underselling. They actually co-authored four Star Trek novels - two for Bantam and two for Pocket Books and co-edited two anthologies of fanfiction for Bantam. Their material was big on hurt/comfort (emphasis on the hurt) and dominance/submission themes that didn't even bother to aim for subtext. And, yes, I was between the ages of 11 and 15 when I bought and read these books and their books struck me as taking place in some nightmarish alternate Trek universe.

[Jonathan Andrew Sheen]: I dunno, I like [those books] better than you folks, although they seem a lot more florid these days than they did when I first read them.

But I think they did interesting, important and daring things where most of the history of "Star Trek" novels thereafter has been a parade of timidity. Confronting James T. Kirk with situations in which he is helpless, or at the mercy of an enemy who can outperform him in every way -- physical, mental, intellectual -- and is bent on pushing him into submission, that's going after the captain at the most fundamental level.

Compared to the wet-noodle blandness of, say, the works of "L.A. Graf" (a consortium of, IIRC 5 writers whose pen name stands for "Let's All Get Rich And Famous"). I think there's a lot to be admired in M&C's first pair of novels.

[Vivian Carlson]: I give you Kirk not crying, because "real men don't cry." Which was just too overwrought, stupid, and offensive for even me (who was reading everything "Trek" I could get my hands on, and always, always finished any book I started - eventually) to keep reading. There were many other things wrong - that was just my tipping point.

[Jonathan Andrew Sheen]: It's not Kirk not crying. It's Kirk not _breaking_. It's Kirk not surrendering, not submitting, even when he wanted to, even when he thought he had, because he was fundamentally, structurally incapable of permitting final defeat. I don't know what I can do for you if you don't get that, but I'm unswayed by your inability. Even if you ultimately think the novels struck out, they did so wrestling very earnestly with important stuff. If they went down, they went down swinging for the fences, which is more than you can say for the 98% of "Star Trek" novels that are strained pabulum, constructed to separate Trekkies from their money with minimum effort and zero challenge to anyone's worldview. [snipped] ... I quite liked M&C's novels, although the prose does read as very purple nowadays. I never read their "secret chapter" and have no particular interest in it, but I thought the novels asked some very interesting questions and posed some very interesting challenges, including the limits of when the Prime Directive stopped being moral. I loved their villain, and I'd love to see him again. And I have to say that I disagree with David about H/C. It doesn't HAVE to lead to porn, but even where it does, the fantasy of someone being cared for at one's most vulnerable by someone who cherishes you and devotes themselves tirelessly to soothing your pain and healing you is a tremendously powerful and touching one, and there's nothing wrong that. There isn't even anything wrong with linking it with romantic fantasy. It's not for everybody, but, hey, I'm not much of a fan of slash. *Shrug.* It's a big fandom. There's room. (Actually, I'll make an exception. I'm Mr. Boring Het-Guy, so M/M slash doesn't do it for me... But if you define "Slash" not as "Male Gay Erotica" but as "Erotica in which characters interact outside of their canonical orientation," then there's some that rings my bells.) (I have an idea for an alternate history of "The Founders" in "Stargate Universe," in which Eli ends up paired up with Camille, first strictly for reproductive purposes, but growing into a truly loving relationship that works just as M/M slash pairings work, with Camille telling Eli, "I'm not straight. This is a special thing that's only about you and me." I don't think I could ever write it without being burned in effigy, but it's a very sweet story in my head.

[Michael Pullman]: Did these wonderful examples of humanity also invent responding to criticism of their slash with accusations of homophobia, or is that an Internet-age development? (And no, I'm not joking.

[Jan Fennick]: Fwiw it's not an internet age development. I remember going to Media*West Con in the early 90s (a con devoted to fanfiction and fanzines) and being accused as such because I didn't slash characters in other fandoms (particularly Quantum Leap fandom which was like 85% slash fiction only, and my friend and I edited/published the only QL humor zine and wrote *gasp* het (m/f) stories ourselves.))

[Glenn Greenberg]: Man, I learned so much from this post. For starters, I never knew that M&C were not revered among mainstream Star Trek fan circles. I thought they were insiders, tight with Roddenberry and the cast, and beloved leaders among fandom. How could I know better? I was about 8 years old when I picked up STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES and not much older when I got their co-written novels. So that was the assumption I had, and carried for all these years. I HATED their novels, by the way--but I thought maybe I was the only one. Anyway... thanks for enlightening me, David!

[Bill Sweet]: I was 10 when their book came out and couldn't make any sense of it. In retrospect I always assumed it was the slash. But on reading it again, it's just the horrible writing. No plot, just talking talking word salad in this arch 50 Shades of Kirk way. All the action happens off-screen, and characters don't actually do anything for more than half the book. UGH

[David McCoy]: I had a friend and her husband sharing my house for a while. Sue was looking for something to read and picked Price of the Phoenix off the shelf. She read about 30 pages, looked at me and said something along the lines of, speaking as a psychologist, this author has issues.

[Rebecca Swope]: I know that book. I burned it once I figured out who the people were. <shudder>

[Rick Sullivan]: Oh. My. God. I just realized who it is that you must be talking about. And... damn. I never ever thought of their work and what I knew of their contributions to fandom in that way, but now that you've pointed it out I can't unsee it. Holy crap, that snaps several things into focus that I previously thought were just a bit odd... (In my defense, their previous collections came out when I was in high school and the novels when I was in college, and I was so distracted by, uh, other things that I was busy with that I couldn't really see anyone else's subtext through my own, uh, text).

[Anthony Finchim]: I also read and enjoyed M&C's published novels when I was in middle school a long time ago. Sorry to hear they were crass, nasty women.

[Sid Terror]: Are those the GRUP books?

[Anthony Finchim]: I am reasonably sure they were ST novelizations.

Topic: Gay Sulu

[Ali Kayn]: I liked the reveal in Trek Classic that Sulu was a swash-buckler at heart. It would be nice if he can spread his wings a bit and be that kind of gay - bright, brilliant, open, and able to enjoy life. I've known some gays who are quite vicious about women, I don't know why, but to me Uhura in the reboot is a fabulous outgoing character, and a platonic, slightly naughty sharing friendship between them would be fun. Can an ensign and a lieutenant be friends?

[Jeff Allen]: Nice write, David. When I think about it, I can see your point, but I think an argument could be made for Sulu being bisexual; but then, being a pretty strongly polarized heterosexual man, I perhaps don't really have context.

[Sue Grau]: Honestly? I never thought about whether any of the Star Trek cast was gay or straight. Kirk was clearly portrayed as the womanizing straight man, and I think I recall McCoy being in love (?) In essence, unless you show me someone in a relationship, I don't assume one way or the other (comes from being the token straight in the family ;) ) I really hope that Sulu's 'coming out' is nothing more than a casual communication with his husband, or just some passing reference, not because I don't want to see it celebrated, but I want it to come across as normal, natural and something so completely commonplace as to not be noteworthy.

[Marc Carlson]: I don't actually have an opinion about whether Sulu (any version) is gay or not. Most often I've assumed that (unless specifically designated in such a way) any character on the various Treks might or might not be straight/bi/gay/trans/or some other form I don't personally have experience with. As a straight male, I can easily say I don't care one way or the other and it doesn't need to be explicit. However, I can also understand how someone without that privilege might get more out of seeing someone 'who is like them.' And it doesn't cost me anything for there to be someone like -not me- on my television.

My question, and it is a serious question, and not rhetorical, is how to distinguish between 'this is a change whose time has come,' the gimmick of 'a very special episode of Star Trek,' a couple of writers who sincerely believe that they know something about this topic so it must be right, or something else (in this category Mr. Gerrold's M/C seem to appear, and possibly the authors of the upcoming movie).

As a writer, occasionally I have characters who are in same sex partnerships and I'd like to know where to tread lightly.

[Sid Terror]: I think that George, by necessity of the times and himself being deeply closeted during those first three formative years of the Original Star Trek, needed to (in his own mind anyway) play Sulu as hetero. That is how his wiring will forever be soldered. I get it.

That said, he should be gracious about it now and accept the tip of the hat from the people who love both him and the character he gave flesh to. It acknowledges his own personal journey. That such a thing could be possible now, should only be seen as a major win.

[Trey Kelso]: I think telling a person that you basically don't know how he should react to such an intensely personal situation as these would not be received the way you want it to be.

[Sid Terror]: Which is why I have the manners to not call George and tell him personally.

Topic: Slash and K/S

[Deb DeFabbo Shaw]: I always have found the instance that Kirk and Spock are gay extremely irritating. The same with Frodo and Sam. How can people so underestimate the ability of men to love without there being a sexual aspect to it? As for Sulu, I imagined him with Janice Rand or Uhura for the simple reason that they were often seen together in quarters or rec facilities. Personally, I have no problem with George saying he was straight because who would know better than the person who lived him? That said, I think a gay character or two is a great thing. I'm not a fan of nutrek. I think they have changed the basics of the main characters out of all recognition. I might not have hated it if the new crew and exact same stories weren't bearing my favorite characters names.

[Heather Park-Albertson]: I ran into that bizarre (to me) thinking years ago in another fandom. There was absolutely no sexual attraction implied or otherwise between the clearly het male leads, but that didn't stop a whole brigade of fans from writing the awfulest of awful slash fanfic. You nailed it (of course you did). Why do some het women fantasize about het men secretly being gay? I do *not* grok.

[Ken Burnside]: ...I have no idea why that many women fan fic writers want to write about gay male sex, gay male attraction, and gay male taboo breaking love...

[Heather Park-Albertson]: Hehe, yeah, they can be a bit intense in a not-entirely-unthreatening manner. One of my fandom's slash writers, on the up-side, forever left me wracked in giggles when I see either peaches in cream, or pears in chocolate sauce. Some of the ladies were going on and on about a recent peep of one of the leads' asses (no, not NYPD Blue), likening it to the halves of a pear they'd love to enjoy slathered in chocolate sauce. B, in the midst of this vaguely pornographic shared food/sex fantasy, stood up and half-shouted, "I don't care what you think of X's ass, I think Y's bum looks just like a ripe peach that I'd love to take a juicy bite of." The following year, when I was on the con com, we ensured that peaches in cream and pears in chocolate sauce were the desserts. B then delivered a bag of fresh ripe peaches to Y, during one of his panels. And then the explanation for why the whole room couldn't stop giggling. Poor guy. He also didn't know about the existence, let alone prevalence, of the slash fanfic. Turned out he was *very* straight-laced :/ I don't think he ever did another con.

By not entirely non-threatening, I mean, the slash authors were some of the most adamant about how theirs was the "correct" version of the characters - over those of the show writers, even. And they got seriously hostile at either any hint of criticism or any suggestion of their "breaking" the fiction the show built. To the point of one woman showing up at Y's door one night to get him to agree her interpretation was correct. The con com had to expel her from the convention, and call the police, and move Y to an entirely different hotel in secret.

[Janeen O'Kerry]: I don't grok that either, Heather Park-Albertson. It's a mystery to me why so many (straight) women insist that if men show any sort of bond, it *has* to be sexual. In all seriousness, it makes me wonder what their home life has been like when they insist that any sort of close male friendship *has* to be sexual and cannot believe it could be otherwise. Boundaries, ppl. Get some.

[Ken Burnside]: Yeah, that matches my recollection. If someone wandered through that room with a selection of 'hurt/comfort/overcome resistance/fuzzy focus sex' gay porn DVDs for $20 each, I think they'd've been able to make a down payment on a house in cash...

[Vivian Carlson]: I know a number of (female) slash writers, of the "we're just doing this for our enjoyment. Read, or don't read, there is no why" variety. I have been told it's kind of a challenge, by now - a couple of cute guys, and two is better than one when writing sexytimes. Yeah, didn't really make much sense to me, either, but nobody's trying to convince anyone else that theirs is the only way, so it's cool. It's the other ones who get up my nose - I had someone tell me in all seriousness that Han was obviously physically repelled by Leia in the movies, and Luke was Han's One True Love, for instance. Whuh? Were we watching the same movies? Or the ones that *really* bother me - the ones I get the impression that for them, no mere woman is good enough for Their Hero. That shows a level of self-hate that just makes me want to cry.

[Jeri Stephan-DeButy]: Back when I was watching "Trek" first-run, I didn't even know there was such a thing as homosexuality; it never struck me that the characters could be anything but what I was familiar with. Even when I eventually ran across the K/S stuff in the late 80's, I only considered that it was some sort of alternate universe thing, not in the "real" world of "Trek" from TOS and the movies that were out then. Had no idea of the nonsense of which Mr. Gerrold speaks.

[Mary Garrett]: Bullies need to be stood up to by the larger group. Unacceptable. Glad to have a full range of humanity represented in the fictional universe, Sulu, Dumbledore, fine humans indeed. I decided long ago, when living near Loring Park in Minneapolis, that the only people whose sexual orientation mattered to me personally were the ones with whom I was going to have sex.

[Lynn Maners]: And then there are K/S artists' interpretations of Spock's genitalia...

[Jack Eaton]: You haven't know panic until, as part of the con committee in Boston, you rush down the hall to the art show to clear out all of the K/S artwork once you hear the words, "Dora Nimoy is coming to the art show!" There was the accompanying, and rather erotic, artwork as part of this K/S subculture. At our conventions in Boston (Leonard Nimoy's hometown) we would display such artwork in an "adults only" section. Dora Nimoy (Leonard Nimoy's mother) would come and visit. We figured it was easier to remove the artwork than trying to explain to Dora why her son was nekkid with Bill Shatner . She was too nice a little old lady to put her through that.

[Laura Quiles]: M&C may have gone into the woodwork, but I know women like that. Oh maybe not quite as bad as that, but very insistent that the slashed pairing is the One True Pairing. It's happening as we speak with Marvel's Capt America movies..."give Steve a boyfriend"...and that boyfriend is very clearly meant to be Bucky.

I've never had a problem with fans who participate in slash, I've even enjoyed some myself, but I think one should be conscious of the fact that it IS an alteration of the source material.

[Brian Cherry]: Marvel's movies are as devoid of gay characters as Trek has been until now. If LGBT existence is going to be erased then it's not surprising that gay people will still want to see themselves reflected in those stories even if they subvert the narrative to find a place in it they can belong.

[Laura Quiles]: Oh, I agree...but I'm not talking about gay people. I'm talking about straight women who write fanfic pairing male characters.

[Kell Godkiller]: I see nothing wrong with seeing Kirk and Spock as lovers. Shrug. I once read that Roddenberry said he had based them off of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion. Absolutely then the homosexual angle is easy to see. I see nothing wrong with making Sulu gay but I think that is more because Takei is gay.

[David Gerrold]: [K/S] was [addressed in the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture in Kirk's foreword] -- and although Gene said no to the whole K/S thing, he did it so graciously that these people promptly took it as proof that they were right.

[David Gillikin]: It's not in the foreword. It's in a footnote explaining the concept of t'hy'la meaning both brother and lover. Admiral Kirk then adds a response that he was not aware of the rumor of him and Spock being lovers and that he has no objections to the manifestations of physical love in all earthly and extraterrestrial forms but that he, Kirk, had always found his gratification best in women, leaving to the imagination just what basis Kirk has for comparison. Kirk expresses some amusement that he would willingly choose a partner who only comes into heat one every seven years (contra Fontana, who is of the view that Vulcans are capable of sexual congress throughout their adult lives, but that the physical act becomes a biological necessary every seven years). In having Kirk be both diplomatic in addressing the question and in making Kirk an enlightened twenty-third century man to whom this shouldn't be an issue, it's worded in such a way that there's wriggle-room that might have been forestalled if Gene had said no more succinctly and definitively.

"I was not aware of these rumors . . . " Are the rumors true, Admiral?" (I thought we agreed, no follow-up questions.)

"I have always found my gratification best in that creature, woman . . ." So, you've had experiences with creatures who are not women, Admiral? ("I didn't say that." - Then what is your basis for comparison, Admiral?)

"Surely, I wouldn't be so foolish as to choose a partner who comes into heat every seven years?" (That sounds like deflection, Admiral. "I think Starfleet's Public Information Officer will be having a word with you.") :)

I don't even ship Kirk and Spock, yet I can see how those early slashfen took Gene/Kirk's note as a lifeline. In trying to put the issue to rest, the way Gene did it paradoxically gave it greater currency.

[John Cary]: I agree on the Kirk/Spock thing. Can you imagine a bj only every 7 years? :P

[Marian Trupiano]: I still have some of the original slash fanfics.

[Ellen Smock]: I've always favored the Spock/McCoy coupling. There's where I see the sexual tension. As to Sulu, I don't see why him groping Uhura in the Mirror universe means he's straight. Bi is totally a thing. When a Bi person finds someone to settle down with they don't become hetero or homosexual. They are still bi. They are just a bi person in a committed relationship with a man or a woman. I can understand that Takei had his personal head canon in which Sulu is straight. I get that. But there's nothing on screen to say that's Star Trek canon.

[Jim Klessig]: I always considered the kirk/spock relationship to be more of one of Spock the dog owner having a dog that just won't stop humping the couch.

[Helena Bowles]: As someone active in the fanfic community I do wish that some slash writers would remember that slash has fuck all to do with representation. It's about, amongst other things, looking at female sexuality with a new lens, with examining, twisting and subverting traditional romance tropes and, yes, about the idea of two pretty men getting it on - which is no more representation than the lesbians in straight male visual porn. And, that the writers/actors/other creators are not necessarily remotely interested in the outpourings of a small, intense, vocal group of fans. They aren't part of our community, they don't see the context or shared culture.

Topic: Fan Behavior

[Cynthia C Lin]: Well, nice (?) to know that belligerent, entitled, unbearable fans are not a new thing.

[David Vineyard]: Telling D.C. Fontana she didn't know about Spock ... like telling Conan Doyle he didn't know Holmes. Some fans need a large dose of humility mixed with reality.

[James K. Chambliss]: One should never proclaim they're an expert of a character they had no hand in creating...or even one they did make. Just look at Conan the Barbarian and James Bond as examples. Characters are meant to be fluid in their interpretation.

Excerpts from the Comments: The Trek BBS

[Give me a] link to the deleted chapter?

I have enjoyed their novels. They are bizarre, but entertaining and distinct in style. I loved their characterization for the female Romulan commander. She was strong and dominant.

And as a gay men who very often felt unrepresented in sci fi, the slash subtext was welcome. But that whole bit about Kirk wanting Spock to rape him is pretty disturbing. It does kind of make sense in the context of their writing as the Phoenix books' antagonist is obsessed with Kirk submitting to him, and their emphasis on Vulcan and Romulan physical superiority did leave Kirk coming off as somewhat fragile by comparison.

Still, as someone who enjoyed their writing and even appreciated the somewhat back door inclusion of diversity via subtext, it's still a shame to hear that they allegedly treated other fans badly. Telling a teenage gay boy he couldn't write slash because he didn't understand homosexuality is bizarre and offensive. I can imagine they themselves faced a lot of prejudice from some fans because of the subtext in their writing. It's disappointing that they turned that same attitude back towards people.

I would try to keep in mind that we're not getting their side of the story. It doesn't sound pretty but I try not to judge hastily.