The Naked Times Flyer Controversy

Related terms:
See also:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The Naked Times Flyer Controversy is a 1978-79 discussion among fans regarding a flyer for the first issue of the Kirk/Spock zine Naked Times.

the flyer (art by Mike McKenny) discussed was published in Warped Space #37 in June 1978

For some additional context, see Timeline of Slash Meta, Slash Controversies, History of K/S Fandom, and History of Slash Fandom.

Timeline

The illo used on the flyer was published in Enterprise Incidents #1 in 1976.

The first issue of Naked Times is published in early 1978.

A flyer for Naked Times #1 was published in Warped Space #37 in June 1978.

A fan commented in appreciation of the flyer in "Warped Space" #38.

There were three letters in Warped Space #41 in May 1979; two were in defense of the flyer, and one was by the fan who'd made the original complaint.

There was a letter in Warped Space #42 in September 1979 in support of the flyer.

Some Topics Discussed

• censorship
• Kirk/Spock (TOS) fanworks
• pornography vs erotica

The Discussion

The illo for THE NAKED TIMES, showing Spock as the (by now) infamous 'simpering gay' was priceless!

A fan, [E M G], was not nearly as enamored and registered her complaint about this ad and its inclusion in Warped Space:

If I were to take up a collection, would you accept payment not to run full-page ads for NAKED TIMES? The gods know that I'm grateful for being warned against that particular 'zine, though. There is a boundary between the liberty of Saturnalia or of humor, both of which are consecrate to the gods, and pure godawful lack of taste, and I honestly think those ads are well over the boundary ... which is probably a pity since some of the story synopses sound quite good. I do not disapprove of sex or of homosexuality, but I do disapprove of stories written purely for their exploitative shock value and the editors of NAKED TIMES have given me every reason possible to distrust their editorial judgment in this matter. I regret going on so long about this, but I felt that it needed to be said, and it is a matter which has been troubling me ever since the first, illustrated ad you published for NT.

One fan's response to [E M G's] letter:

Uh, Lori? Can I pay you not to run anymore letters from [E M G]? There is a boundary between glib, opinionated letters and pure godawful ignorant conceit and intolerance, and I honestly feel [Ms. G's] is well over the boundary. Need I go on, [Ms G]? Your LoC in WS 40 suggests censorship. Who among us does censorship not ultimately affect? You? Ah, I think not, [Ms G]. Though you seem fond of pronouncing judgment ("All art was good", an entire story was "mediocre"; can't you at least be more creative?), I dare say you are not blessedly and solely immune from censorship. I'm extremely happy to know you don't disapprove of sex. Now that's interesting. And very enlightened. As for homosexuality, while you are fond of exhibiting your mythological knowledge, I really doubt your magnanimous tolerance is to be considered a blessing from the gods. In short, who cares? Who cares if you "do not disapprove" of homosexuality? (Does that mean, in double talk, that you "approve of two consenting adults having the right to love whom they choose?" Ah, I wonder ... ) Be that as it may, if you wish to censor us, [Ms G], you must understand, you ultimately censor yourself. You have the right to like or dislike, read or not read, accept or reject, as do we. You do not have the right to censor, nor do we. It works out nicely, you see?

Another response, this one by Della Van Hise, editor of "Naked Times":

I am currently in the process of taking

up a collection of my own — in response to [Ms G's] letter in WS #40. A collection which would expedite the immediate deportment of all beings who would propose censorship of any kind against their fellow beings. Deportment to where? Really doesn't matter, though I suppose the dark side of the moon would be appropriate — a barren world devoid of ideas and concepts contrary to a certain individual's personal preferences! If any one and everyone who objected to this, that or the other thing had their person al wishes fulfilled, this would indeed be a barren world — everyone dislikes some one in one way or another. Surely, if censorship was practiced in the way which [Ms G] feels it should be, then almost all forms of literature would eventually cease to exist — enter FARENHEIT 451, right?

If I am to be censored because my ads supposedly "go beyond the boundary of good taste", then I feel it would also be my prerogative to attempt to censor the censor according to my rights as a human being. A vicious circle which works destructively in both directions, wouldn't you say? Where do one person's rights end? Where another's begin, of course. Therefore, if [Ms G] or anyone else feels that my ads and/or zine is to be censored, then am I to feel that her writing and/or opinions should suffer the same injustice? I have the same rights to submit an ad for publication as she has to submit a public denouncement of my so-called "lack of taste". In my opinion, "lack of taste" would also encompass submitting a public letter before and without addressing it to the attention of the individuals involved. It's a rather "brave noise", but not a very professional maneuver.

What most fans who saw the controversial NAKED TIMES cartoon in my first ad don't realize is that that particular piece of artwork was published long before the current K/S controversy. It was originally pubbed in ENTERPRISE INCIDENTS #1 [in 1976] — and very well received by both heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. If we cannot laugh with and at our "heroes" then we are indeed a pitifully morose race — destined to forever write "death and carnage" stories as a form of our own mental "suicide". I think if anyone had found the cartoon (or the ads) to be "destructive" it would be me! Having been on both sides of the proverbial fence myself, I found the cartoon the ultimate "jab" at a subject which some fans tend to take all too seriously — those who have lost the ability to enjoy their own diversity, and who walk around with the proverbial cloud of gloom hanging morosely over their heads. At any rate, I hasten to add that Ms. Grasso has not ordered NAKED TIMES, and is therefore proclaiming knowledge of something which she hasn't experienced unless she has borrowed a copy elsewhere. One cannot make a value judgment on the basis of advertisements. If we did, we'd all be drinking Pepsi Cola and keeping the Preparation H people in business until the end of time!

As to the fact that [Ms G] feels that the stories in NT are "written for exploitative shock value" let me say this: does she have the right to say that? Has she even seen a copy of NAKED TIMES, much less condescended to read what she's so adamantly opposed to? I seriously doubt it! To me, it sounds as if her comments were written for the sake of "making that brave noise" I mentioned earlier. Since she never wrote to me in regards to the matter, I must assume that her main reason in writing to WARPED SPACE was to gain the support of other non-K/S fans for whatever reason. She wasn't concerned enough about it to go directly to the source, so she opted to try to discredit the zine and its editors publicly. Suffice it to say that I do not object to good, constructive criticism of either the zine or its advertising methods. What I do object to is when someone proposes censorship for any reason whatsoever — particularly when such a comment is leveled by a fellow fan. We are supposed to understand IDIC, you know. And that involves tolerance. No one has to read anything, yet that person need not try to dissuade others from reading it on the basis of a person al objection to the advertising methods.

As I've said before, I don't particularly subscribe to the Mary Sue notion, and I have ordered zines which were labelled as "a Star Trek love story" only to find another Lt. Mary Sue Vulcan story. But I would seriously question anyone's motives who wrote in to a prominent zine such as WS and criticized the zine for that reason alone — that it was advertised "exploitatively". How many women get exploited in a Mary Sue zine? Plenty! And yet no one screams about it. Is it because the stories have become old hat and everyone just tends to dismiss them entirely? And do fans tend to criticize K/S stories/zines because they happen to be the "newest thing" in fandom? I don't think anyone on the K/S "side" is out to put the Mary Sue zines out of business, so why the sudden furor to try to censor K/S zines?

Is it really that you don't "object to sex or homosexuality" or was that phrase merely a disclaimer to a deeper motive? The K/S and/or adult zines do not ask that you support them, [Ms G], merely that you extend to them to courtesy of allowing them to enjoy the diversity of Star Trek in their own way. Is that such a terrible thing to ask — tolerance or merely disinterest?

Needless to say, if anyone does not wish to read NAKED TIMES or any other zine for whatever reason, that is certainly their prerogative. Yet I would hope that one day we can "lower ourselves" to the professional courtesy of addressing the individual in question before emphatically stating our views publicly. Such unprofessional antics can only lead to hard feelings, misunderstandings and the ultimate downfall of fandom in general. However, since I feel I was publicly "exploited" I can feel no sense of remorse in defending my own position. We are in fandom to lend strength and hopefully love and brotherhood to one another in various and sundry diverse ways — and that includes such things as tolerance, personal and professional courtesy and a more relaxed attitude from all concerned. We aren't here to destroy one another, are we? Sometimes I wonder ...

Comments by [E M G], the original writer of the complaint:

I thank you for your letter, but feel that your reaction to my comment in WARPED SPACE was somewhat extreme. Apparently the phrasing of my original letter was more ambiguous than I had realized, and so was interpreted as being more strongly negative than I had intended. Being whimsical about a debatable subject is always hazardous.

I had intended by my tentative beginning and controversial style in the first sentence of the comment to indicate both my lack of seriousness in the suggestion that I pay her to omit and advertisement and my awareness that you have every right to publish anything you wish to pay for.

I addressed my comment to Lori because she was the seller of an object for which I had paid, and on which I therefore had the right to comment, and which contained material which I considered worthy of comment.

I believe that I stated clearly in my comment that I was commenting only on the advertisements, that my acquaintance with your material was limited to those advertisements, and that the synopses in the advertisements indicated that your fanzine contained some excellent material which I thought I might enjoy reading. I attempted to indicate that my negative reaction was to the layout and phrasing of the advertisements as such.

My comment regarding "exploitative shock value" referred largely to 1) the overall visual impact upon opening WS 37 to the double-page spread on pp. 12 and 13 (I honestly believed that ad was a hoax or parody until the later ones appeared) and 2) to the synopsis in WS 39 which begins "have you ever wanted to laugh and vomit at the same time?" and which continues in phrasing which I, at least, associate with a porno come-on.

I am on public record, in Lori's zines and elsewhere, as stating that the difference between pornography and erotic literature is that in pornography the story exists for the sake of the sex, and in erotic literature the sex occurs for the sake of the story.

I found your assumption that I am against the publication of K/S stories amusing, since I have had letters published in which I commented on the illogic of assuming that Vulcans necessarily disapprove of homosexuality and in which I discussed the possible psychology of a K/S relationship at some length. I also found your assumption rather confusing, since I said absolutely nothing about K/S stories in my published comment.

With regard to advertising in general, I must say that in my opinion the worst ad being inflicted on the public at the present time (in terms of tastelessness) is the Geritol Megavitamins ad involving newlyweds discussing potency.

Comments by Leslie Fish:

Sorry, [E M G], but no matter how you explain it, you did ask Lori not to print the ad for NAKED TIMES. Never mind how you could label a list of contents in "bad taste"; tell me, how are people supposed to know about the contents of the 'zine unless the contents are described? How else are people supposed to know in advance what they're getting? If Delia hadn't used ads describing the contents, no doubt someone would have complained (in fact, some benighted soul actually did) that he/she didn't realize what sort of 'zine he/she had ordered. So, does the publisher describe (and shock) or not describe (and mislead)? You can't have it both ways.