Originally Posted by BoringGuy
Star Wars vs. Star Trek is definitely one of the consummate archetypical debates of contemporary Western popular culture. You can apply it to just about any intellectual masturbation exercise, and use it to prove whatever point you want.
I have always leaned toward the "Trek" camp, probably because I can find more characters in it with whom i identify in real life, but it doesn't really matter which side of the fence you land on. It is still a wonderful rhetorical tool.
I hope you don't mind that I responded to your post in another thread BG, but it was kinda getting off topic in the original thread and yet I found it an interesting enough sidetrack to not want to let it go :-). So here goes...
In regards to polyamory, I think that Star
Trek wins hands down in the poly issue; they even had that doctor in Star
Trek Voyager who was openly polyamorous. Nycindie wrote a great post regarding perhaps the most brazen display of polyamory in the Star Trek Universe
; in contrast, I can't really think of -any- polyamorous content in any of the Star
That being said, I loved the Star
Wars films as well; unlike Star
Wars which, by some lights, could seem to be an updated version of the U.S.'s military (call it the 'explorer division' if you will), Star
Wars is constantly portraying things from the -other- side; the rebels, desperately trying to win what frequently seems like an impossible battle against the well established powers that be.
I know it's not nearly as clear cut as that; the Bjorans, ofcourse, are generally thought of as rebels, but by and large we tend to see the perspective of the ones in power, not those without it. The only large exception to this is the Q; I know that the main Q guy is constantly annoyed Picard, but considering the immense power they had, they really seem to be amazingly benign. The Empire in Star
Wars is generally anything but.
Anyway, if anyone else would like to share their thoughts on Star
Wars and/or Star
Trek, regarding polyamory or otherwise, please pitch in :-).