Certainly doesn't hurt. Again, when I, and many of my trekkie buddies go back and actually watch TNG, we find that they simply don't take enough chances in many aspects of the characterizations of the plot. No, not everything has to be GOT but it definitely is the way TV is and SHOULD go. DS9 is and always will be my favorite trek simply because it took the risks the other TV shows wouldn't. Voyager had some great moments, but the concept was again flawed by not taking the chances they had. The ENTIRE show should have been Year of Hell. Eventually BSG came along and did a great job (until the last two seasons) but Trek needs to take up that mantle of telling the hard stories of our future, not a Roddenberry future which will never exist.

It most certainly can, when it's not necessary or relevant.

No, it most certainly is not. The way TV should go is back to what TNG was - good, clever, inteligent, relevant stories.

BSG is the worst show I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting is absolutely horrible, it boggles my mind how something so utterly trash could ever come to be, let alone get multiple seasons. Everyone seems to have bought that pretentious air when in reality none of it ever made any sense on any level, and even George Lucas in his prequel age was writing better scripts.

Darker, violent and "risky" in that adolescent way doesn't make something smarter, deeper and better.

And here is where your opinion differs from mine.
BSG saved Sci Fi from the depths of Enterprise and Voyager and gave it some new life.
If you can't understand what BSG was about, that's not my problem. I thought the writing was really good, at least for the first few seasons. We can debate this all you want, but it's one opinion over another and neither of us will "win" this.

Like you are trying to do.

There's nothing hard to understand about it. Quite the opposite, it's impossible not to see through it and all the plot holes and lack of planning. At their worst Enterprise and Voy were still a thousand times better.

Well that's a weird thing to say. I'm not sure how I was trying to "win" any more than you were, or anyone ever when having a discussion. But whatever, I'll take any excuse to end this, I really don't feel like debating a horrible show I have not seen for years. It's a thread about the future of Star Trek, not the past of BSG.

This is a forum for nerdy people spending far too much time on computer games and other forms of pop culture, so this statement is pretty dubious.
And Starfleet is at core still a quasi-military organization...do sailors on aircraft carriers or submarines have daily sex? I doubt it. Maybe masturbation, but do we want to see that?
Anyway, I think Voyager and especially Enterprise were pretty trashy, and in retrospect even TNG has too many boring episodes, but I think "more sex and violence" wouldn't do much good. Enterprise had tendencies in that direction, and it was one of the reasons why that show sucked. It's of course possible that Star Trek's optimistic vision of the future is hopelessly dated, and pretty naive in any case...but if you think the basic formula is stupid, the Trek universe should just be retired, not changed into something totally different.

So does sleeping and eating - it doesn't mean it makes for a compelling narrative.

In all your comments what seems to be missing is an understanding or maybe more accurately an appreciation for the philosophical aspects of trek. Could a mature rated trek have an episode that examines ideas about sex? Sure. Does that require week to week use of the subject? No. Given how much trash there is on a day to day basis that revolves around specticle and the sensational I could see myself losing interest rather quickly in the type of trek you're suggesting.

I never went further than the first season of GoT for good reason - it's a fantasy soap opera centering around groups jockying for power (quite boring).

Ultimately trek viewers (I think) expect better.

It doesn't look like there will be a future of Star Trek after what J.J. Abrams did. His movies are not Star Trek. Calling a fucking dog, a cat doesn't make the dog, a fucking cat. Now those J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" movies are decent science fiction movies but that is all I can say about those movies. If the next Star Trek series is set in the J.J. Abrams universe, then R.I.P. Star Trek...

There was actually one particular episod of DS9, "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." that acually suffered because of the absence of nudity and sex on screen. Because this episode was about debaucery and how it's bad. But because there was no real debauchery shown, those people, who were against it looked in the episode just like bunch of puritans.
Never heard of "recreation room" aka holodeck?

There is a CSI episode that takes place at a sci-fi convention where they are premiering the reboot of a classic sci-fi show (which looks exactly like Star Trek). But the new show is dark and gritty, and looks exactly like the new Battlestar Galactica. The fans' reaction is priceless and hilarous, especially because the most vocal one is played by none other than Ron Moore, writer of ST and creator of BSG.

I love BSG. It's one of my favourite shows ever and I would love to have another show like it again on TV. But not necessarily a Star Trek one; Star Trek has its one way of doing things, and I like it was well.

And regarding nudity, sex scenes or extreme violence, they are only good if they add something to the story. More often than not they are a sign of lazy writing.

Sex with holograms isn't real imo, it's just a more elaborate kind of masturbation.

The Doctor and other holographic lifeforms' rights activists would disagree.

What is real? Sex is masturbation but with the assistance of another human being.

Sorry, but the question was
Don't you agree that "real" character having sex with holographic character is not the same as someone jerking off?

you're the expert, you tell us

I didn't even make it to the end of season 1 it was so bad. I forced myself through 8 episodes and couldn't bear any more of the awfulness.