Brokeback Mountain Forum @ ennisjack.com
The Movie & Story => Characters, Quotes & Scenes => Topic started by: hephaestion on Feb 09, 2006, 12:20 PM
-
This is my first post here, but I have spent a few hours reading many posts.... a lot of heart and soul in here, and great posts on the human story. But so far, the discussions referring to BBM all seem to springboard from the assumption or catchphrase "the gay cowboy movie."
I don't mean to detract from the depth of anyone's posts, but I don't feel it's trivial at all that we're referring to "gay" experiences rather than bisexual experiences. Ultimately, BBM is about love, of course, but it also is about sex and commitment. It's as if as soon as one has had a homosexual experience, that they're instantly and forevermore "gay". To much of the domesticated "hetero" population, it is the fear of this stigma which I believe is the guiding principle for all other homophobic thoughts, urges, and actions/reactions.
I believe the vast majority of humans are on a sliding scale from absolutley and completely "hetero" on one side, and absolutely and completely "homo" on the other. A large minority are strictly heterosexual, a very small percentage strictly homosexual, and the vast majority of us somewhere in between. That is, most of us are bisexual in nature. Separating thoughts/whims from actual experience, and discounting the fantasizing during sex or masturbating, I would hold that most of us are hetero in action, but significantly bisexual in nature. We are at once both sexual beings encased in a very complicated soup of genetic material, and also social animals conditioned to interact with a high density of a wide variety of similar sexual/social humans... (geez that sounds so cold and logical, but it really isn't :-\)
In the wild, male animals sometimes mount other male animals. Dogs are a good domestic example of this natural occurrence. In 9th grade biology, over a few generations of fruitfly experiments, I saw that there were always some males that pursued other males and did the "courtship dance" with other males...
Throughout recorded human history, male/male sexual encounters have always happened... Sodom and Gomorrah, Alexander and Hephaestion, the Greek and Roman civilizations, the Egyptians, the list goes on. Aside from the religious and societal taboos that have been placed on these minority acts, and larger than those same religions and societies that have come and gone, human sexual encounters are MUCH larger than that and more a part of who we are than a particular fad/view/rule/paradigm/era's current outlook or taboo on any subject, science included. However oppressed or liberated in any historical moment, human sexuality is greater than the confines of that one lifetime --- it is our very being.
Now I've gone too deep on the analytical side. ???
Let me bring it back to everyday talk. ;)
A quick analogy, then the final point. Rock music is now several decades old. Pick any random artist, and we will attempt to categorize the music -- classic country, motown, emocore, bubble gum pop, intelligent dance music, progressive house, be-bop, Christian rock, deathmetal..... the list goes on. Rather than a futile attempt at saying X artist is in Y category, it would be more accurate to say that they have "leanings" or "tendencies" or "elements of" country or hard rock or gospel, etc. Of course, most people don't talk like this, but only because we've been conditioned this way, and it is how "everyone else" talks. Easier to categorize, to lump the world into black and white, gay or hetero.
My point is, with the Internet, this new revolution of sharing human experience from a grassroots level rather than a handed down, scriptural or societal or other other authoratative source or myth, with the Internet and these forums, we are re-educating and re-evaluating ourselves from a very honest and personal level.
If we are pioneers in enlightenment then, shouldn't we tread boldly but carefully with each step we take? Should we not say "bisexual" more often? Is this not closer to the truth?
Who would've thought a couple decades ago that a good number of us actually have "their own Brokeback Mountain"? In those same decades enormous human rights strides have been made.
There is a reason for ethics and morality, but at the same time, there is the just progress towards integrity and enlightenment.
All I'm saying is, if these BBM forums are a starting point for discussions which can change the outlook of mainstream for the better, shouldn't we start by properly framing the starting-point of our discussions using more accurate terms like "bisexual" rather than "gay"?
Actually, we're kinda doing this already with the testimonies in the "your own private BBM" posts where the stories are told, without the use of the words bisexual or gay, but just the true hearltfelt love stories :)
Pushing semantics and details aside, the epic truth still stands: Love is a force of nature.
-
A man much wiser than I am observed that two heterosexual men can have sex together and successfully reach an orgasm. If these heterosexual men are married or have had sex with women, technically, we call them “bisexual.” However, the term is not very helpful since such men have made love mechanically, without real passion for one another. So these men are really not “gay” in the same sense that laying one brick does not make you a mason.
On the other hand, gay men make love with each other “passionately,” not mechanically, and that is why they are gay: the presence or absence of passion is what makes the difference, not their anatomy. Passion between a man and a woman in love is what makes them heterosexuals, not anatomy.
In the motel scene Ennis and Jack are clueless about the above distinctions. In Brokeback Mountain Ennis says:
You know, I was sittin up here all that time tryin to figure out if I was -- ? I know I ain't. I mean here we both got wives and kids, right? I like doin it with women, yeah, but Jesus H., ain't nothin like this. I never had no thoughts a doin it with another guy except I sure wrang it out a hunderd times thinkin about you.
…ain’t nothing like this” gives Ennis’ orientation away.
Jack is similarly oblivious to the truth about himself:
Christ, it got a be all that time a yours ahorseback makes it so goddamn good.
Hephaestion, I think you are right that there is a wide spectrum in mankind, both of the degree and to whom, passion is felt, but hetero-, bi, and gay do not portray the rainbow of this spectrum in anything like its deepness or complexity.
-
i vote human beings as we all are - gay, bi, sraight, anything.
-
Hephaestion, I think you are right that there is a wide spectrum in mankind, both of the degree and to whom, passion is felt, but hetero-, bi, and gay do not portray the rainbow of this spectrum in anything like its deepness or complexity.
Agreed, the sexual passion and love (or the lack of) one can have for others can go deeper than simply saying you have a "hetero" relationship. In my eyes, Jack and Ennis are not "gay" either, because "gay" is a straightjacket on what they are going thru. Bisexual is a more accurate term because they have sexual and passionate relations with each other and their wives. But more importantly, "bisexual" carries less of a stigma than "gay", if only because it is more common (although not fully acknowledged yet).
Granted, back in the '60's in the Midwest, I don't imagine folks were any more tolerant of bisexuals than they were of gays. Today, there's a shade more tolerance and understanding of homosexuality. In the future as I hope to see it, the civilized will simply acknowledge the normality of our bisexual nature, and the stigma will be largely diffused. Gays will refer to strictly homosexuals. It won't be a judgment, but a statement of fact.
Like our own personal Brokeback Mountains, many will have a same-sex affair. Hopefully it will compassionately be taken as a special love that may have passed, something to be treasured, and not be ashamed about anymore.
Ideally, the labels will vanish, and we will all be called "lovers". We will openly admire a gorgeous hunk with a hypnotizing smile, and the sexy fox with silky skin. But most importantly, without fear, we will look into the eyes of anyone and see the beauty inside. We will connect, and truly value when precious love is found.
-
Vote for human. Human is my first definition, any thing else is just another definition of who I am. Man, son, brother, uncle, and so on. Words to attain understanding for the places one places themselves in and for other people to categorize me according. Unfortunately some people's categorization might be based solely on their life experience and not mine. Thus, one person might be fitting me somewhere I do not fit by my own definitions. If that makes any sense...
-
Love is a force of human nature!
-
Just human. Can't help who you fall in love with.
-
Just human. Can't help who you fall in love with.
Ennis just human, yes.
Jack? He's attracted to men.
Or else, love at first sight when he sees Ennis for the first time?
Those glances! :-*
-
True. Who couldn't fall madly in love with Jack. Those dreamy killer eyes. :)
-
On the other hand, gay men make love with each other “passionately,” not mechanically, and that is why they are gay: the presence or absence of passion is what makes the difference, not their anatomy. Passion between a man and a woman in love is what makes them heterosexuals, not anatomy.
Hephaestion, I think you are right that there is a wide spectrum in mankind, both of the degree and to whom, passion is felt, but hetero-, bi, and gay do not portray the rainbow of this spectrum in anything like its deepness or complexity.
Hephaestion, Septuaginarian, I wish all our participants wd read yr wise words.
Hephaestion importantly resurrects the almost forgotten perspective that most of us lie somewhere between the solely gay and solely hetero (what a social revolution it would be if society/officialdom recognized this fact).
And having established this simple ground rule, we must expect depth and complexity and variability of human experience and potential, as Sept encourages us to do. (We wait with bated breath to witness how Ennis and Jack will proceed, since we suspect this is uncharted territory for both of them, so that anything might happen. This is one of the sources of tension/excitement in the film. And why Ang Lee decided to do this story--it's possibilities and obstacles are so great.)
The ideas are really not so complicated. Why is society so hidebound?
IMHO, BBM starts the process of exploring these perspectives, and that's why it's so important as a movie, *and* one reason why it hits us so hard. Your quotes are spot on Sept! Thanks for your carefully crafted, but passionate posts. What a pleasure! :)
So now I should sign myself Bi
-
Jason,
I appreciate what you said. Agreed.
-
I believe as others have said here that most of us ARE NOT exclusively gay or hetero.
I might be shot for bringing up the Kinsey scale...
0- Exclusively heterosexual, not homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
...but I think that it still has validity.
a TRUE bisexual is a 3.
Based upon my personal history, I think I am a 4. My first LTR was a 10 year marriage to a female with whom I shared what I still believe to have been an honest, passionate relationship. My longest male LTR (8 years) was with a man that was also a 4. I think that we are drawn to people who share similar values and experiences in matters of sex. I might add that I choose to self-identify as gay a this point in my life, because people seem to NEED labels, and if you start getting into these complexities with someone new in your life, either their eyes will roll back in their heads, or they will turn tail and run!
That brings us to Ennis and Jack. I think Ennis was a 4 or 4.5, and Jack was about a 5.5. Did this disparity add to the strain between them? It's possible. - remember the "for boys like you in Mexico" scene. My last male LTR was with a 6, and he truly DID NOT like the fact that my orientation had a degree of ambiguity.
Thoughts on this?
-
I think "human" is an appropriate term. Does it truly matter so much that we feel the need to label ourselves and slot us into a pigeonhole only to picked out by the hand of fate, rather than our own needs, wants, and desires. Love is love, shouldn't matter who with.
-
I have a question for you.
If the Kinsey scale is true, as I have some doubts, then tell me
I have met lots of 0s and lots of 6s. But my God, I have met maybe very very few people that fall in the other categories, and I have met alot of people. So, what is, in your opinion or based on research, the prevalence of those 'in-betweens' compared to the 0s and 6s. I think you wish they exist but in fact very very few do. That the large majority of us fall somewhere between 0 and 6, I have yet to see.
-
Sharve,
I think it is very difficult to categorize a person's sexuality according to the Kinsey scale. It was a nice idea but just not useful when "plugging" a person into such a limited scale. I prefer to use a continuum. Hetero.............Bi............Homosexual
I think sexual preference (or orientation) is not cemented in stone. What I mean by this is: If a hetero man is insecure he is going to make a big deal about homosexuality (makes me think he doeth protest too much) as well as a gay man who makes similar statements about being 100% gay. The more secure one is about their sexuality, the less discussion about it there will be. We are all 100% sure the sun will rise from the east, but you don't see anyone going out and making a big deal about the sun rising once again. The sunrise just is. Sexuality at any place along the continuum just is. Categories are used by humans to attempt to create some sense of order.
-
Sharve,
I think it is very difficult to categorize a person's sexuality according to the Kinsey scale. It was a nice idea but just not useful when "plugging" a person into such a limited scale. I prefer to use a continuum. Hetero.............Bi............Homosexual
I think sexual preference (or orientation) is not cemented in stone. What I mean by this is: If a hetero man is insecure he is going to make a big deal about homosexuality (makes me think he doeth protest too much) as well as a gay man who makes similar statements about being 100% gay. The more secure one is about their sexuality, the less discussion about it there will be. We are all 100% sure the sun will rise from the east, but you don't see anyone going out and making a big deal about the sun rising once again. The sunrise just is. Sexuality at any place along the continuum just is. Categories are used by humans to attempt to create some sense of order.
See, I DID say that somebody would shoot me!
DrBill, if I get what you're saying, you would deliberately make the Kinsey model more blurry and fluid. That's really interesting and probably more reflective of 2006 reality. After all, Kinsey released this information in 1948, and the findings were based upon interviews. Self-perceptions were likely very different back then, because the world was very different. Today, we are more likely to ask this: What could be more subjective and non-determinant than a discussion of sexual attraction?
It would, though, be nice to get out a bag of cement and seal yourself into a point of orientation so that you can stop reassessing yourself - LOL!
JB ;)
P.S. I guess I will now have to position myself somewhere on the second set of ................s and live with the reality that the whole matter is about as stable as the San Andreas Fault!
-
yes JerBear you are correct. Sexuality is more fluid than what is allowed with the labels of today. I do believe a person's sexuality could be interpreted incorrectly by the use of labels. One need not reassure themselves about their sexuality but rather just BE themselves according to their interpretation of their own experiences of life. One thing to consider: We do not know if Ennis had any previous sexual experiences with a man. His attraction to Jack began during that summer and as time passed the electricity between the two became unbearable for them. The time these two men shared together developed into a relationship strained by societal edicts. Reality is what you perceive it to be. Your reality is not what others think but what you see to be real for you. We must live according to our beliefs. Love yourself, enjoy yourself and others will too. Stability is a perception based upon your previous experiences. Freud said that we are all born latently bisexual. I think he spoke the truth.
-
I think that society makes such a big deal of sexuality, and we are really products of our society. I am certain that if I were to somehow "log" my thoughts as I meet people, or interact with them I would find that I spend a fair amount of time deciding whether I think they are gay or not. Sex really does rise to the surface (pun kind of intended) of great importance in our lives and it is a big deal when we are interacting with others. It's great to say we are all human and that's all that matters, but I think the truth is we are all sexual humans. If we aren't jumping into bed, we are either thinking about it, remembering it, picturing others doing it, or some such thoughts.
If it really was safe to be with anyone in our society, I think it would be a very very different world (and better.) How different would suprise us all I think. Because I do think we are all fairly bisexual.
Oh, and about Jack and Ennis. My opinion is that Ennis is pretty much hetero and Jack is probably a 3 or 4 - bi.
-
Human, with certain orientations, perhaps. They both say they aren't queer but they have sex and are in love with each other...so?
I've never introduced myself or thought of myself first as gay. It's what society wants me to be, maybe: one thing, clearly defined, exact, safely outlined with no surprises. But, guess what? None of us are like that, not always. Define me as gay but I know that this is but one side of a multi-faceted gem...and this gem is strung together with all the other gems in one big chain, whether it is acknowledged or not.
Straight, gay, bi, transgender. One day we won't care about such things. Sure, definitions will continue, be applicable. But once we see the universality of love and human connection - I mean really touch the deep core of this - these words and definitions will be mere guideposts along the road. No real stopping place.
-
On the Kinsey Scale, the Cowboy is a 6+ (ok I have my moments, when I even scare myself there). Women are great as friends and yes I have a deep respect and abiding love for some of them, but only in that respect. Sorry you Cowgirls, but the thought of climbing into bed with a woman or making out with one....sends shivers down my spine. Or as I usually put it....ewwwwwwwwwww ;D
-
Ok that Kinsey Scale really confuses me!
(https://ennisjack.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kinseyinstitute.org%2Fresources%2Fimages%2Frating-scale.jpg&hash=b3bc13293d3754686256a2715d1495077b8c4e30)
0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
What about heterosexual only incidentally homosexual (but with more homosexual thoughts than actions)...who lusts after Heath Orlando Colin etc, and sometimes about Monica or Angelina?
I'm not a 2 but I'm not a 3 either...I have many friends who would be cast as 3...and wouldn't 2 and 5 as well as 1 and 4 the same ones?
How can one person be categorised according to a silly graph anyway!!!
-
Froggy, you're of course right. There's a reason you are the Queen around here. Btw...had you crossed my path in a different time and place, I might say you could have turned me to the other side!
-
Froggy, you're of course right. There's a reason you are the Queen around here. Btw...had you crossed my path in a different time and place, I might say you could have turned me to the other side!
I was told by a monk that I had had many great lives, some sad some good....so who knows? Then again, nothing guaranties me that I was a woman then!!! ;D
-
I'm a true believer in past lives, there's things in my life I can't explain, and certain people I am innately drawn to for no reason. Those I know from a time long ago. I had someone I trusted very much give me some background information on my 'past'. I am convinced that I am here to make some of those re-connections. The universality of BBM transcends past, present, and future.
Moua to You Dear Froggy! Man or Woman, You are a HOTTIE!
-
I'm a true believer in past lives, there's things in my life I can't explain, and certain people I am innately drawn to for no reason. Those I know from a time long ago. I had someone I trusted very much give me some background information on my 'past'. I am convinced that I am here to make some of those re-connections. The universality of BBM transcends past, present, and future.
Moua to You Dear Froggy! Man or Woman, You are a HOTTIE!
<OT> But who cares?
MOUA to you too...you are a keeper...and I like your new title mister latest mod squad member!!!
-
I have always believed that the majority of us are bisexual. As a young man I certainly could have interacted with a woman. Gee, could have interacted with a mail box. I met a young Irish lass one summer while working on Cape Cod. The moment we met was magic, and we spent the summer together conviently (for me) deciding that we would keep things plutonic, as she was going back to Ireland. Inseperable and loving each minute we had together we lived a gentle summer together. At a late night beach party, everyone necking and more, she tried to seduce me. I panicked, knowing I could do it but knowing it wasn't fair to her or me. 2 days later we left together for NYC. I had arranged for her to stay with one of my female friends from college and I was going to stay with a buddy. On the train from Boston I summoned up the courage to suggest that we bag the living arrangement plans and get a room together in NYC. She wisely nixed that idea. Nice time in the city and a sad goodby.
2 years later, I'm back on Cape Cod and she is back in Boston spending the summer with her brother and his new wife. She takes the bus down to see me. It's like we have never been apart. The same chemistry, same feeling, but by now I am out. I know what I am. While I go to work she goes out and finds a job and a place to stay and floors me with the news when I meet her after work. I know I can do this, know I can love her, but I also know who and what I am. I am not gonna do this to her, she deserves better. So, I sit her down and tell her the truth. I love her, there will never be anyone else but her but I will not let her waste her life on me. I am that 10% whatever % it is gay. At 23 I could have made love to her, but at 35, 45, 55? I couldn't do that to her.
I think of her often these days. I hope she has had a good life. I know she married well and hope she loved the guy she married. I'd love to see her, just to see her, know she's alright. We had something that summer, pure and clean and real. Damn, guess I ought to post this in the "Brokeback Mountain Experience " section.
So in answer to the topic, I guess we are all human, whatever our orientation.
-
So in answer to the topic, I guess we are all human, whatever our orientation.
Thankx for posting..
-
sex is sex
our animal human instinct
-
Love is Love, when it occurs it matters not which gender one is, Nature takes it course.
Human beings forget the labelling
-
Love is Love, when it occurs it matters not which gender one is, Nature takes it course.
Human beings forget the labelling
Frenchcda - Thanks. Labels only work to the extent of boxing people into the rigors that society dictates so everyone knows their place, gosh I hate that line of thinking, but in American society that is very true. Everyone has a label nowadays. I choose to opt out of that process. I hope more people will as time passes. To label someone as gay, bi, or straight, and work to keep them there at all costs is somewhat un-nerving. In the general sense of the word, I'm gay, but if we break that down, what exactly does that mean? Whom I choose as a partner, the way I dress, what music I listen too, etc. I'd like to think I'm open enough to consider all shades of gray, just not the "white and black". Sometimes I hear things out of other gay men and woman and I think to myself...you've got a long way to go. Is it so hard to appreciate everyone? I've stated before I think we should all be supportive of one another, especially those who are affected by laws, rules, and regulations imposed by society on anyone who is gay, bi, transgendered, etc. In short as humans and with such a very limited time on this planet, we should spend more time learning and loving and less labeling and fighting.
-
In short as humans and with such a very limited time on this planet, we should spend more time learning and loving and less labeling and fighting.
Cowboy, words to live by. Awesome!
-
Totally agree. :)
-
Someone was asking about percentages. Kinsey said that 37% of men had at least one homosexual experience leading to orgasm. I think many were in adolescence though, and not repeated. This is common.
I believe that labels can't be applied to a lot of us, but that they can be applied to some, those who are 6's and 0's and remain 6's and 0's throughout their lives, with no desire to ever change, and they do make up a significant percentage. So I wouldn't throw out all labels for everyone, just for those who don't fit into them.
Of course, it's a bit more complicated. You could be a 6 physically but a 5 emotionally, a 6 in terms of experience, but a 5 in terms of fantasies, etc. You might have to chart yourself on each of many indices of 6 to 0. It sounds ridiculously complicated, but then, thats what psychologists do, those in the area of psychometrics. It keeps them busy and happy. I studied this. I think we need more work in this area, it's pathetically simplistic right now.
-
I agree, Troy, that we need more research on this. The problem with the Kinsey scale is a problem of bias. What I mean is, in a society where most aren't free without judgment to "be" whatever sexual orientation they are (which I maintain is predominantly bisexual of varying degrees), most people cannot admit, even to themselves, that they may have homosexual tendencies. Society or religion or even your friends and family still looks mostly negatively at homosexuality. Especially back in the 60's. Therefore, most likely fool themselves into denial.
If you cannot even admit to yourself, how is a bunch of interviews going to find out? This is the bias in the Kinsey approach. There needs to be devised a truly objective and verifiable way of identifying the quantity of homosexual thoughts, urges, and fantasies each of us has. Basing statistical graphs on how many sexual acts the average person has had is not the correct way to go. Actions alone do not determine one's sexuality.... a virgin who dies young still has a sexuality. We need ways to physically measure arousal, as in elevated hormones, blood pressure, eye pupil dilation, breathing rate, and brain wave patterns or real-time CAT scans. Perhaps surprise and expose the poor lab subjects to super gorgeous, friendly, seductive, young and tan nude males and females, very closeup and in private, and when the subject is drunk and uninhibited? ;D
All the while monitoring their vital signs, lol.
Alas, what would this prove. Even in the face of scientific evidence proving our largely bisexual nature, most would not accept this. Look at the theory of evolution. Or when The Church was shown by Copernicus that the world was round and not flat. They rejected it. As would most of our society, at least in this decade.
The bright side is that Ang Lee and BBM has opened yet another door to the path of truth. And the fact that the DVD pre-order is #1 also says something. In the privacy of their own homes, people can explore the world of Ennis and Jack without the fear of societal stigma. More are curious and seeking justification of their own bisexuality than is openly admitted. At least this is what I'd like to believe.
That, and we all really like a good, moving love story.
-
Kinsey was not a psychologist but rather a zoologist. Go figure! He did study psychology in his undergraduate years according to the information I read.
Sexuality is an idea. Ideas can challenge another person's beliefs and when this occurs a historical course of action repeats itself...an attempt to destroy the person or persons who have the challenging "idea." What is more important is our definitions of ourselves. We pick those definitions and when we choose too few we are subject to feelings of insecurity. Sexuality is one definition in a myriad of my definitions.
-
Kinsey was not a psychologist but rather a zoologist. Go figure! He did study psychology in his undergraduate years according to the information I read.
Sexuality is an idea. Ideas can challenge another person's beliefs and when this occurs a historical course of action repeats itself...an attempt to destroy the person or persons who have the challenging "idea." What is more important is our definitions of ourselves. We pick those definitions and when we choose too few we are subject to feelings of insecurity. Sexuality is one definition in a myriad of my definitions.
drbill, beautiful post. Perhaps not everyone may agree with you, but you said your opinion beautifully. Thanks.
-
Thanks tpe! It is just one way of looking at it. For every perspective there might be, there is a person who believes it. It is that person's point of view that matters. Perceptions are kaleidoscopic in nature...shifting through patterns of experiences as life changes.
-
Thanks tpe! It is just one way of looking at it. For every perspective there might be, there is a person who believes it. It is that person's point of view that matters. Perceptions are kaleidoscopic in nature...shifting through patterns of experiences as life changes.
I respectfuly disagree with a particular implication that can be gotten from your post. It seems to imply that every single person's point of view is equally as valid as any other person's point of view. While it may be comforting to feel your perspective is just as valid as anyone else's, I dont' believe this is at all true.
Surely your don't believe that the perspective of a deranged serial killer, a religious zealot, a 3rd grader, a documented genious, an alcoholic housewife, a slightly retarded 40 year old, a backwoods bigot, or a Brooklyn gangster all have equally valid points of view?
-
A person's point of view is based on their life experience even if it is morally or ethically wrong. It still remains their perspective. Each person believes that what they see, feel and do is valid. However, I am not speaking about the validity of a person's perspective...but rather it IS what the person believes. I was referring to perspectives in the context of sexuality (homo, bi or heterosexuality). Each person's perspective is not necessarily a fact or based upon truth...it is their opinion based upon their life experiences, how they were brought up, and so on. We each are going to see a sunset in a different way...we are going to see the world in a vastly different way. Our attitudes about our experiences will vary. I do not imply validation of a person's perspective nor do I imply acceptance or agreement with their perspective...but I merely state that each person is going to view sexuality based upon their life experiences, beliefs and such.
I might want to know a person's perspective to understand why they might do what they do or think the way they do. A valid point of view is only going to matter to that person...no one else...since our point of view may never be the same.
-
As far as I'm concerned, they're just human (isn't everyone?) As humans, it's so easy for as to become attracted to another person whether it's puppy love, a healthy (or not so healthy) love for someone who doesn't share the same feelings (ie, student - teacher ....), mutual love or .... well I could keep going on. Ennis and Jack were just two lonely men who fell in love. And I think we all thank them for it every day.
*Sigh* Love :-*
-
As far as I'm concerned, they're just human (isn't everyone?) As humans, it's so easy for as to become attracted to another person whether it's puppy love, a healthy (or not so healthy) love for someone who doesn't share the same feelings (ie, student - teacher ....), mutual love or .... well I could keep going on. Ennis and Jack were just two lonely men who fell in love. And I think we all thank them for it every day.
*Sigh* Love :-*
Thank you greenfrog, nice post.
-
We need ways to physically measure arousal, as in elevated hormones, blood pressure, eye pupil dilation, breathing rate, and brain wave patterns or real-time CAT scans. Perhaps surprise and expose the poor lab subjects to super gorgeous, friendly, seductive, young and tan nude males and females, very closeup and in private, and when the subject is drunk and uninhibited? ;D
All the while monitoring their vital signs, lol.
I participated in a study like that once. They sent in this very handsome, well built guy and I broke the meters the reaction was so high. They replaced the equipment and they sent in this atractive brunette. In a few minutes they sent in the crash cart thinking I was dead. The equipment registered nothing.
-
In my mind, human, nothing more, nothing less. We are not labels, but purely human beings. :)
But, for sake of the movie I want to make a comment.
I keep watching and wondering if Jack is gay or if Ennis is gay, in relation to this movie. When Ennis says "you know I ain't queer" and Jack pauses and just his expression says it all to me. Then when he says "me, neither" watch his eyes, watch his expression. It's as if he's lying, he's gay and he's not going to say it out loud. Yes, I know he gets married, etc, but as I have stated before, that's what you did back then. Not that it matters, it really doesn't, but it's something I always wonder what they are trying to tell us in the movie.
ann
-
I'd say that they're human.
But if I HAD to pick labels for them I'd say that Ennis is bi and that Jack is also bisexual; but they're on opposite sides of the sexual spectrum. Jack is bisexual but more into men and Ennis is bisexual but more into women.
Like in the scene where Ennis and Jack are talking about having sex with their wives and Jack says "oh we could do it on the telephone...", and how Jack wound up going to mexico and picking up a trick (1 night stand) and how he ended up getting with the other rancher that was married.
Or how Ennis had sex and relationships with other women besides his wife.
-
i do believe that gay or bi are kinds of human. so for me, they are human.
however, they might have sex with both man(for ennis)/men(for jack) and woman(for ennis)/women(for jack).
i'm not sure about gay or bi. if ennis enjoys sex with both man and woman, he could be bi. however, i don't really know that ennis enjoys having sex with alma or not. i think that gay man can also have sex with woman. if so, he is called bi. and if he choose to have sex with just man avoiding with woman, he is called gay. it's all about physical thing. so i think gay could be bi... and bi could be gay. (i'm not saying about the one who wants to change his gender.) it's all about what gender he choose to do with.
for me, i know i choose to be honest with my b/f. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ so i may be bi or gay... whatever you call.
sorry, if i don't make my opinion clear. i really am.
-
i do believe that gay or bi are kinds of human. so for me, they are human.
however, they might have sex with both man(for ennis)/men(for jack) and woman(for ennis)/women(for jack).
i'm not sure about gay or bi. if ennis enjoys sex with both man and woman, he could be bi. however, i don't really know that ennis enjoys having sex with alma or not. i think that gay man can also have sex with woman. if so, he is called bi. and if he choose to have sex with just man avoiding with woman, he is called gay. it's all about physical thing. so i think gay could be bi... and bi could be gay. (i'm not saying about the one who wants to change his gender.) it's all about what gender he choose to do with.
for me, i know i choose to be honest with my b/f. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ so i may be bi or gay... whatever you call.
sorry, if i don't make my opinion clear. i really am.
I think I know what you mean here. Is sexual orientation more of a physical or psychological state of mind? Usually, they are intertwined, IMO, so it is a difficult thing to delineate with precision.
-
Of course they're human. Loving someone is the most wonderful human emotion there is - and it doesn't matter whether the other person is the same sex as you or not, it's the love that matters.
I'm going to risk the wrath of Chameau here by quoting a passage from Human Interest, just because I honestly feel that MadLori puts it far better than I could....for anyone who hasn't read it, this is Ennis speaking.....and he's absolutely right.
“Dammit, why’s it all gotta be about what to call folks?” he exclaimed. “Why you gotta put a damned label on everbody? When we was married to women we was straight, but now we’re with each other we’re gay or queer or homosexual or whatever. Why’s it gotta be like that? Ain’t it enough just to say that I’m spendin’ my life with Jack ‘cause he’s my fella and I chose him, and all that means is just exactly that!”
-
Of course they're human. Loving someone is the most wonderful human emotion there is - and it doesn't matter whether the other person is the same sex as you or not, it's the love that matters.
Who has the heart to disagree with this?
NoReins, thank you. :)
-
Human of course, everyone is, what else could you be a robot ^*()
-
Human of course, everyone is, what else could you be a robot ^*()
Or dead. No wait, even the dead have souls. :)
-
Fascinating thread, thanks everyone for all your contributions :)
I've always been puzzled by Ennis's use, in the ss motel scene, of the plural "women", as far as I can tell, the only woman he'd been with at that point was Alma :-\\ I always thought the "you may be a sinner..." line, about him being a virgin, meant with women, as well as men, so unless he had sex with some other woman between leaving Brokeback and marrying Alma (which he could well have done,imo, to maybe prove to himself he definitely wasn't gay), he wasn't really comparing sex with men to sex with women, he was just comparing sex with Jack to sex with Alma, and obviously there was only going to be one winner there ;)
I think that's what, in Ennis's case at least, makes the question of his sexuality irrelevant, his one and only real sexual attraction in his life is to Jack, and Jack happens to be a man.I don't get the impression he likes doing it with Alma that much (at least not the "conventional" way), but regards it as a chore, part of his duty as a husband, but I don't think it's because she's a woman, it's simply because she's not Jack. If Jack had been a woman, or if Ennis had felt for Alma what he'd felt for Jack, he'd be 100% heterosexual,cause he'd never feel the need, or the desire, to be with anyone else (I know there's Cassie, but he wouldn't have given her a second glance if she hadn't made the moves, and his heart's never really in it ).We never get to see Ennis in a similar situation with a goodlooking man trying to chat him up, but if we did, I bet he wouldn't be interested either, and not just because of the fear he had of being gay,but because it wouldn't be Jack.
I don't know if any of this makes sense, but Ennis's "saving himself", for want of a better expression, for Jack, is quite a romantic notion,the idea that sex is something almost sacred, to be shared only with someone who you connect with on an emotional level. Jack is the more outwardly romantic one, yet he has no problem separating sex from love, he can see sex as a purely physical need that has to be fulfilled, totally separate from what he has with Ennis, his soulmate, where the sex is the physical manifestation of the emotional connection between them.
So, if we're talking labels, I'd say Jack was definitely gay,not so much because of Mexico, and Randall, because I don't think any of that would have happened if he'd been with Ennis, but because he'd been with men before Ennis, and obviously enjoyed it, but with Lureen, even though he's attracted to her on some level, it's obvious that sex with her just doesn't feel right to him, beyond the fact she's not Ennis, but if she was a man, he'd have no problem. Ennis, on the other hand,it's impossible to say for sure, I guess Kinsey will have to invent a new category for people who are only attracted to Jack F***in' Twist ::) ;) :) :-[
-
Basically what you're saying, Crimsonsky, is that some of us are monogamous - fall in love once and that's it, don't want other relationships or sex for fun - while others fall in love once but can dissociate that from sex, and then others again fall in love over and over. Whether it's with their own sex or the other seems pretty much irrelevant - if you love someone, you love them, not which they are - the rest, whether you do anything about it or not, is down to social, cultural, etc conditioning.
-
Basically what you're saying, Crimsonsky, is that some of us are monogamous - fall in love once and that's it, don't want other relationships or sex for fun - while others fall in love once but can dissociate that from sex, and then others again fall in love over and over. Whether it's with their own sex or the other seems pretty much irrelevant - if you love someone, you love them, not which they are - the rest, whether you do anything about it or not, is down to social, cultural, etc conditioning.
Yes, thanks, welshwitch, that's exactly what I was trying to say, except I don't have the ability to say it so clearly and concisely :-[ My dad always said I talked too much, I think my dad was right ;) :-[
-
In my mind, human, nothing more, nothing less. We are not labels, but purely human beings. :)
But, for sake of the movie I want to make a comment.
I keep watching and wondering if Jack is gay or if Ennis is gay, in relation to this movie. When Ennis says "you know I ain't queer" and Jack pauses and just his expression says it all to me. Then when he says "me, neither" watch his eyes, watch his expression. It's as if he's lying, he's gay and he's not going to say it out loud. Yes, I know he gets married, etc, but as I have stated before, that's what you did back then. Not that it matters, it really doesn't, but it's something I always wonder what they are trying to tell us in the movie.
ann
I think Jack felt he HAD to say that so he wouldnt run Ennis off...I think he was on the line.
-
Fascinating thread, thanks everyone for all your contributions :)
I've always been puzzled by Ennis's use, in the ss motel scene, of the plural "women", as far as I can tell, the only woman he'd been with at that point was Alma :-\\ I always thought the "you may be a sinner..." line, about him being a virgin, meant with women, as well as men, so unless he had sex with some other woman between leaving Brokeback and marrying Alma (which he could well have done,imo, to maybe prove to himself he definitely wasn't gay), he wasn't really comparing sex with men to sex with women, he was just comparing sex with Jack to sex with Alma, and obviously there was only going to be one winner there ;)
I think that's what, in Ennis's case at least, makes the question of his sexuality irrelevant, his one and only real sexual attraction in his life is to Jack, and Jack happens to be a man.I don't get the impression he likes doing it with Alma that much (at least not the "conventional" way), but regards it as a chore, part of his duty as a husband, but I don't think it's because she's a woman, it's simply because she's not Jack. If Jack had been a woman, or if Ennis had felt for Alma what he'd felt for Jack, he'd be 100% heterosexual,cause he'd never feel the need, or the desire, to be with anyone else (I know there's Cassie, but he wouldn't have given her a second glance if she hadn't made the moves, and his heart's never really in it ).We never get to see Ennis in a similar situation with a goodlooking man trying to chat him up, but if we did, I bet he wouldn't be interested either, and not just because of the fear he had of being gay,but because it wouldn't be Jack.
I don't know if any of this makes sense, but Ennis's "saving himself", for want of a better expression, for Jack, is quite a romantic notion,the idea that sex is something almost sacred, to be shared only with someone who you connect with on an emotional level. Jack is the more outwardly romantic one, yet he has no problem separating sex from love, he can see sex as a purely physical need that has to be fulfilled, totally separate from what he has with Ennis, his soulmate, where the sex is the physical manifestation of the emotional connection between them.
So, if we're talking labels, I'd say Jack was definitely gay,not so much because of Mexico, and Randall, because I don't think any of that would have happened if he'd been with Ennis, but because he'd been with men before Ennis, and obviously enjoyed it, but with Lureen, even though he's attracted to her on some level, it's obvious that sex with her just doesn't feel right to him, beyond the fact she's not Ennis, but if she was a man, he'd have no problem. Ennis, on the other hand,it's impossible to say for sure, I guess Kinsey will have to invent a new category for people who are only attracted to Jack F***in' Twist ::) ;) :) :-[
Your conclusions are interesting CrimsonSky , and they are valid as any.
I do think marriage with Alma provided Ennis with a means of satisfying his sexual needs. I am not trying to directly answer the question as to whether he enjoyed it or not. But I do think that there is satisfaction in the sexual act itself.
Having said that, I do think there is a deeper level of sexual fulfilment -- something that cannot just be addressed in physcial terms. There is the psychological and spiritual aspects to contend with, and in this arena, I do think it was Jack and only Jack who provided for Ennis.
Does the ability to perform and enjoy to some level the sexual act with a female partner bars that person from being gay? I think not necessarily. And it does not prove bisexuality altogether. I think gayness goes to a deeper level, the criteria being very similar to that which is met by Ennis's love for Jack. Certainly, Ennis's monogamy with Jack does not discount gayness either. His inability or not wanting to have sex with other men does not mean that he is not attracted to them. As in the case of a monogamous relationship between husband and wife, either partner is certainly not immune to the charms of other individuals. Hence, Ennis's monogamy with Jack can be purely his choice, and does not necessarily prove a lack of attraction to the same sex.
What I am also implying here is that the case of Jack can be treated in a similar light. His openly seeking out other male partners does not necessarily rule out bisexuality, although it must be admitted that the component that is attracted to the same sex is more prominent. Also, the film does not really discount sexual relations with Lureen altogether. There is a lack of information in this regard, unlike in the case of Ennis with Alma.
Hence my conclusion still rests in a context of sexual ambiguity. My belief that sexual proclivity is a continuum perhaps biases me from the start. But I do think in the case of Ennis and Jack, it can be argued that the specificity of their sexual orientations is far from definitive.
My opinion.
-
Crimsonssky. I think your dad was wrong. Communicating your thoughts as you're thinking them is interesting - anyone can sum them up after you've formulated them in the first place.
In the end whether you're bi or gay or hetero comes down, I think, to what you allow yourself to do. Clearly it's possible to have a sexual relationship with anyone who attracts you, if they're willing; clearly also sex without love is possible, as is sex with only ? interest/attraction/liking and some affection - this is what I think Jack found with Lureen. If you're romantic and a purist ? puritan you find the one and that's it; if like Jack you're a romantic but not puritanical you keep the dream but adapt to reality as well, or give in to desperation - hence Randall and Mexico. If the one is the "wrong" sex you either accept it or fight it - that's Ennis.
-
I do think marriage with Alma provided Ennis with a means of satisfying his sexual needs. I am not trying to directly answer the question as to whether he enjoyed it or not. But I do think that there is satisfaction in the sexual act itself.
Oh yes, I agree that Ennis would have enjoyed the sexual release of sex with Alma, but based on the sex scenes between them, I get the feeling that he would have prefered to stick to "wringing it out a hundred times" thinking about Jack.But again, that's just my opinion :)
Crimsonssky. I think your dad was wrong. Communicating your thoughts as you're thinking them is interesting - anyone can sum them up after you've formulated them in the first place.
Thanks welshwitch.Maybe my dad was wrong then, I dunno, I could never please my dad, no way ::) :c)
In the end whether you're bi or gay or hetero comes down, I think, to what you allow yourself to do. Clearly it's possible to have a sexual relationship with anyone who attracts you, if they're willing; clearly also sex without love is possible, as is sex with only ? interest/attraction/liking and some affection - this is what I think Jack found with Lureen. If you're romantic and a purist ? puritan you find the one and that's it; if like Jack you're a romantic but not puritanical you keep the dream but adapt to reality as well, or give in to desperation - hence Randall and Mexico. If the one is the "wrong" sex you either accept it or fight it - that's Ennis.
Totally agree with this. On the basis of my own experiences, I'm 100% heterosexual, but I'd never discount the possibility that I just haven't met the right woman yet! ;) :)
-
I do think marriage with Alma provided Ennis with a means of satisfying his sexual needs. I am not trying to directly answer the question as to whether he enjoyed it or not. But I do think that there is satisfaction in the sexual act itself.
Oh yes, I agree that Ennis would have enjoyed the sexual release of sex with Alma, but based on the sex scenes between them, I get the feeling that he would have prefered to stick to "wringing it out a hundred times" thinking about Jack.But again, that's just my opinion :)
Crimsonssky. I think your dad was wrong. Communicating your thoughts as you're thinking them is interesting - anyone can sum them up after you've formulated them in the first place.
Thanks welshwitch.Maybe my dad was wrong then, I dunno, I could never please my dad, no way ::) :c)
In the end whether you're bi or gay or hetero comes down, I think, to what you allow yourself to do. Clearly it's possible to have a sexual relationship with anyone who attracts you, if they're willing; clearly also sex without love is possible, as is sex with only ? interest/attraction/liking and some affection - this is what I think Jack found with Lureen. If you're romantic and a purist ? puritan you find the one and that's it; if like Jack you're a romantic but not puritanical you keep the dream but adapt to reality as well, or give in to desperation - hence Randall and Mexico. If the one is the "wrong" sex you either accept it or fight it - that's Ennis.
Totally agree with this. On the basis of my own experiences, I'm 100% heterosexual, but I'd never discount the possibility that I just haven't met the right woman yet! ;) :)
CrimsonSky, it's a fascinating question, isn't it? We certainly don't need to arrive at a definitive answer for this. But the discussion here is a sort of end to itself. It makes us question who we are or what we think as a sexual being.
Thank you so much for your thoughts. :)
-
CrimsonSky, it's a fascinating question, isn't it? We certainly don't need to arrive at a definitive answer for this. But the discussion here is a sort of end to itself. It makes us question who we are or what we think as a sexual being.
Thank you so much for your thoughts. :)
Thanks tpe :) I agree with you, there's no right or wrong answer, not just on this subject, but on most of the questions the movie raises, but it's fascinating to explore all the different angles people see it from :) I'm so glad this film was made now, and not 20 years ago, when we wouldn't have been able to discuss it like this :)
-
It's true that the net gives anonymity, almost instant contact over huge distances, selectivity - you can choose your company as you can't always on Planet Reality - and allows you to be whoever you want. You can label yourself if you want to, or not - the interesting thing is that you can also say what you like, test out and abandon ideas in a way that's not possible elsewhere.
Perhaps also discussions like this, and the fact that they're not susceptible to resolution, makes us realise the ambiguity of things. Neither Jack nor Ennis is entirely anything so labels are irrelevant.
-
As a bisexual male here's what I have to say about it, at least from MY own personal experiences.
I can’t really box my sexuality into a number, percent, or ratio; but I just know what I like and what I don’t like. I don't really see myself in ratios/percents in the whole gay/het dichotomy. I just go by the fact that I've been sexually and romantically attracted to both men and women. I've met people who think of their bisexuality in the whole het/gay dichotomy (i.e.-80% het, 80% gay) but I can't do this and I have absolutely no idea how people can come up with ratios like that with something so complex as human sexuality, let alone their own sexuality.
I can't really go by the Kinsey scale, because I've been at different points on it with different people. I don't really go by the Kinsey scale because it just measures past sexual behaviour, not desire. I have been all over it, and fallen in love with both men and women. I have found that most people rate themselves too low. For example in the original study if you were a "1" on the scale it just meant that you had sex with someone of the same gender while drunk, if someone was forced to do it, or just once out of curiosity and never again such as how lots of guys that grow up to be het are sexual with boys as a kid and masturbate together or "experiment".
I also think that the scale is out dated in today's fluid sexual society, where our definitions of orientations are changing and becoming obsolete; but I see just why the study had to be researched/published in a time when all sexuality was "in the closet" so to speak.
The Klein grid (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Sexual_Orientation_Grid and here: http://www.youthnetsouthampton.org.uk/breakout/kleingrid.php) makes sense to me but I don't obsess over what my number is, and last time I took it, it said that I was mostly equal but a bit more into men. I've had times where I've thought that I'm het and times where I thought I was gay but I know that I'm neither, and that I've never been heterosexual even if society tries to program us into thinking that we are that way.
I do know that it all boils down to the person. I'm attracted to people for things that don't have to do with their gender such as intelligence, humour, personality, communication, our personal chemistry, kindness or other aspects that have more to do with who they are as a person than their gender. The more I get to know a person on a personal/intellectual level the more I'm attracted to them, and turned on by them. But when gender does come into play I will admit that I'm attracted to men because they're men and women because they're women. I am also very picky I'm a lot more picky with women than men as weird as that sounds.
I've also noticed that I can be fluid in my attractions. I want men, women, both at the same time, or even people who don't identify as "man" or "woman". I'll have dreams/fantasies about men, women, and I recenly had a lucid dream that involved both a man and a woman. Or sometimes in my dreams/fantasies I am having sex with a person of one gender and the person of the other gender is there watching or actively involved. I get sexually and romantically attracted to both men and women sometimes at the same time, or I'll go through periods where I'm REALLY into one gender and I have almost no interest at all in the other one. But when I go through periods where I crave one over the other it doesn't make me heterosexual or gay even if in the past I'd wonder if I was when that would happen.
-
Welcome, Newt. I do have a few bisexual friends who also say that they don';t see the point quantifying their sexuality according to a fixed dichotomy. To them, it is on a case by case basis. What they do know is when they ARE attracted to someone.
What is your opinion of Jack's sexuality? One way of thinking puts him more as a gay character, whereas there are some who side with a more fluid view of his sexuality.
-
Welcome, Newt. I do have a few bisexual friends who also say that they don';t see the point quantifying their sexuality according to a fixed dichotomy. To them, it is on a case by case basis. What they do know is when they ARE attracted to someone.
What is your opinion of Jack's sexuality? One way of thinking puts him more as a gay character, whereas there are some who side with a more fluid view of his sexuality.
I see Jack as being a bisexual man. If you go by the Klein Grid or Kinsey scale see here: (Klein grid: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html) Kinsey scale (see here: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html) Ennis would be a 2 on the Kinsey scale and Jack would be a 4 on the scale and they're both bisexual characters in the story and the movie.
-
I see Jack as being a bisexual man. If you go by the Klein Grid or Kinsey scale see here: (Klein grid: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html) Kinsey scale (see here: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html) Ennis would be a 2 on the Kinsey scale and Jack would be a 4 on the scale and they're both bisexual characters in the story and the movie.
Newt, I do think that Jack and Ennis being bisexual is entirely plausible, although I myself tend to see him more as gay. But I belive you are right when you point out that sexual orientation is, in general, more of a continuum, rather than something very clear-cut. And I do think that the bisexual element is latent in all of us, whether we choose to identify with either end of the specturm.
-
My view of them is gay too. I think because they were in love with each other and not just friends who engaged in casual sex sometime and then went home to their other lives and were mostly content with it. I think the only time they were content was when they were with each other. They were a couple and just because they didn't live together didn't mean they didn't share a commitment to each other.
-
My view of them is gay too. I think because they were in love with each other and not just friends who engaged in casual sex sometime and then went home to their other lives and were mostly content with it. I think the only time they were content was when they were with each other. They were a couple and just because they didn't live together didn't mean they didn't share a commitment to each other.
To repeat what you said, I do think that the love they shared is what defines them. It wasn't the sex or the tortured musings and the rest -- it was the love that defined them to me this way. Of course, others would point out that love shouldn't be classified in terms of sexual orientation, and that it is universal. Well, that too is plausible.