Topic: Jack's Sexuality: A Discussion

[tpe]

On a level playing field, sexual orientation does not matter to a point.  We all know that the field is far from level.

Also, sexual orientation to me defines a certain aesthetic view of the world.  Sexual orientation defines a certain sensibility, as can be seen over several millenia of Art and Culture. 

Sexual preference illuminates taste.   And taste is never a moot subject.



 

[welshwitch]

De gustibus non disputandum est.

There you are, tpe, some Latin for you.

I rather wish some of the human race would act by the above - it would lead to a more peaceful world.

[tpe]

De gustibus non disputandum est.

There you are, tpe, some Latin for you.

I rather wish some of the human race would act by the above - it would lead to a more peaceful world.

Thanks welshwitch.  I wpuld even daresay that sexuality is as much taste as it is inherent in human nature.  I think a common error is to equate sexuality exclusively with procreation.  If that were the case, then I might as well say that the culinary arts might as well have not progressed beyond picking and eating berries.

[monicita]

tpe,

I would say that the drive towards procreation may be inherent in nature, but human sexuality is not "natural" at all (at least not now and not for many hundreds of years). It is part of society and as such, endlessly changeable and changing all the time. When we look at Jack and Ennis, we can see that they have no real vocabulary to talk about their sexuality. Had they lived under different circumstances and in a different society, things would necessarily have been very different. Jack and Ennis on the East Coast? Or in San Francisco? Wouldn't have been the same. And their sexuality would have been inconceivably different as well. Hey, what about a new fanpic: Jack isn't really dead, he just decided to go off and live in San Francisco, because he couldn't stand the humdrum life he was leading.

monicita

[tpe]

tpe,

I would say that the drive towards procreation may be inherent in nature, but human sexuality is not "natural" at all (at least not now and not for many hundreds of years). It is part of society and as such, endlessly changeable and changing all the time. When we look at Jack and Ennis, we can see that they have no real vocabulary to talk about their sexuality. Had they lived under different circumstances and in a different society, things would necessarily have been very different. Jack and Ennis on the East Coast? Or in San Francisco? Wouldn't have been the same. And their sexuality would have been inconceivably different as well. Hey, what about a new fanpic: Jack isn't really dead, he just decided to go off and live in San Francisco, because he couldn't stand the humdrum life he was leading.

monicita

I agree.  It is not a question of "naturalness".  Thanks monicita.

[Patriot1]

De gustibus non disputandum est.

There you are, tpe, some Latin for you.

I rather wish some of the human race would act by the above - it would lead to a more peaceful world.

Perhaps if they understood latin or if people translated it for them they would live by it. Is that a possibility?

[tpe]

De gustibus non disputandum est.

There you are, tpe, some Latin for you.

I rather wish some of the human race would act by the above - it would lead to a more peaceful world.

Perhaps if they understood latin or if people translated it for them they would live by it. Is that a possibility?

Sorry Patriot1.

It means: "There is no dispute regarding taste."  (i.e., taste is subjective).  I think the common English equivalent is "There is no accounting for [good] taste."

[welshwitch]

Except that Latin's more subtle than English. so you lose the force of "disputandum".

I agree - had they been brought up in a less censorious society or period, their lives might have been very different. It's hard to separate character from upbringing - it's the old nature/nurture dispute. Jack I think would certainly given his nature have been out and proud of it in a different time and place. Ennis I'm not so sure about.

[Patriot1]

Thanks welshwitch.  I wpuld even daresay that sexuality is as much taste as it is inherent in human nature.  I think a common error is to equate sexuality exclusively with procreation.  If that were the case, then I might as well say that the culinary arts might as well have not progressed beyond picking and eating berries.

A person's sexual orientation is a tiny part of them as a human being. They spend a very tiny portion of their lives in bed having sex with someone else. And to say that a person's sexual orientation is a "taste" is simply preposterous. A "taste" implies a choice. My sexual orientation truly was not a choice. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle so ridiculed and hated by so many who like to assign labels and to put those labels and their occupants into neat little cubbyholes?

Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. The fact they loved each other does. Would the movie have been different if they were both straight? Would it have been different if they were both gay? Or would it have been different if one was gay and the other straight?  I don't think so. The movie wasn't about their sexual orientation. It was about two men who fell in love, albeit one much later than the other.

HOWEVER, the movie WAS about putting labels on people and how putting labels on people can be deadly and can destroy a person's life. If people didn't put labels on others Rich and Earl would have lived out their lives and Ennis would not have been subjected to the horror he was. And if people didn't put labels on others and Ennis had not seen Earl dead because of labels, he and Jack just might have gone off and had that sweet life together.

And by the way, how did the town's people know Earl and Rich were queer and were having sex? Did they do it in the streets? Did they go around town telling everyone they saw? Earl and Rich could have been two guys running a ranch together and could have been perfectly straight. But the town's people put a label on them and one died because of that label.

No, I don't want people to label me by the color of my skin or who I sleep with. I want to be judged by what is in my heart and my character. There is only one person who has the right to label me and that is me.

And as for eating berries, well, I just have no idea how that can be equated to a person's sexual orientation but, let me say this; if you were eating berries, I would have found a way to enjoy my steaks and chops.

[tpe]

Thanks welshwitch.  I wpuld even daresay that sexuality is as much taste as it is inherent in human nature.  I think a common error is to equate sexuality exclusively with procreation.  If that were the case, then I might as well say that the culinary arts might as well have not progressed beyond picking and eating berries.

A person's sexual orientation is a tiny part of them as a human being. They spend a very tiny portion of their lives in bed having sex with someone else. And to say that a person's sexual orientation is a "taste" is simply preposterous. A "taste" implies a choice. My sexual orientation truly was not a choice. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle so ridiculed and hated by so many who like to assign labels and to put those labels and their occupants into neat little cubbyholes?

Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. The fact they loved each other does. Would the movie have been different if they were both straight? Would it have been different if they were both gay? Or would it have been different if one was gay and the other straight?  I don't think so. The movie wasn't about their sexual orientation. It was about two men who fell in love, albeit one much later than the other.

HOWEVER, the movie WAS about putting labels on people and how putting labels on people can be deadly and can destroy a person's life. If people didn't put labels on others Rich and Earl would have lived out their lives and Ennis would not have been subjected to the horror he was. And if people didn't put labels on others and Ennis had not seen Earl dead because of labels, he and Jack just might have gone off and had that sweet life together.

And by the way, how did the town's people know Earl and Rich were queer and were having sex? Did they do it in the streets? Did they go around town telling everyone they saw? Earl and Rich could have been two guys running a ranch together and could have been perfectly straight. But the town's people put a label on them and one died because of that label.

No, I don't want people to label me by the color of my skin or who I sleep with. I want to be judged by what is in my heart and my character. There is only one person who has the right to label me and that is me.

And as for eating berries, well, I just have no idea how that can be equated to a person's sexual orientation but, let me say this; if you were eating berries, I would have found a way to enjoy my steaks and chops.

I do beg to disagree.  When we talk about taste, we talk about sensations.  We can interpret sensations any way we want or CHOOSE to want, but we CANNOT DENY sensations.  To say that sensations imply a choice is to say that we can choose to have no feeling.

Sexual orientation is greater than just what you do in bed.  It defines what appeals to us, our sense of physical and spiritual aesthetics.  It is NOT a tiny part of myself.  It informs my sense of beauty, my sense of pleasure, my sense of life.  It defines how and who you love.  By this single virtue, it should be treasured above many other things that purport to define us as human beings.

[Patriot1]

Thanks welshwitch.  I wpuld even daresay that sexuality is as much taste as it is inherent in human nature.  I think a common error is to equate sexuality exclusively with procreation.  If that were the case, then I might as well say that the culinary arts might as well have not progressed beyond picking and eating berries.

A person's sexual orientation is a tiny part of them as a human being. They spend a very tiny portion of their lives in bed having sex with someone else. And to say that a person's sexual orientation is a "taste" is simply preposterous. A "taste" implies a choice. My sexual orientation truly was not a choice. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle so ridiculed and hated by so many who like to assign labels and to put those labels and their occupants into neat little cubbyholes?

Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. The fact they loved each other does. Would the movie have been different if they were both straight? Would it have been different if they were both gay? Or would it have been different if one was gay and the other straight?  I don't think so. The movie wasn't about their sexual orientation. It was about two men who fell in love, albeit one much later than the other.

HOWEVER, the movie WAS about putting labels on people and how putting labels on people can be deadly and can destroy a person's life. If people didn't put labels on others Rich and Earl would have lived out their lives and Ennis would not have been subjected to the horror he was. And if people didn't put labels on others and Ennis had not seen Earl dead because of labels, he and Jack just might have gone off and had that sweet life together.

And by the way, how did the town's people know Earl and Rich were queer and were having sex? Did they do it in the streets? Did they go around town telling everyone they saw? Earl and Rich could have been two guys running a ranch together and could have been perfectly straight. But the town's people put a label on them and one died because of that label.

No, I don't want people to label me by the color of my skin or who I sleep with. I want to be judged by what is in my heart and my character. There is only one person who has the right to label me and that is me.

And as for eating berries, well, I just have no idea how that can be equated to a person's sexual orientation but, let me say this; if you were eating berries, I would have found a way to enjoy my steaks and chops.

I do beg to disagree.  When we talk about taste, we talk about sensations.  We can interpret sensations any way we want or CHOOSE to want, but we CANNOT DENY sensations.  To say that sensations imply a choice is to say that we can choose to have no feeling.

Sexual orientation is greater than just what you do in bed.  It defines what appeals to us, our sense of physical and spiritual aesthetics.  It is NOT a tiny part of myself.  It informs my sense of beauty, my sense of pleasure, my sense of life.  It defines how and who you love.  By this single virtue, it should be treasured above many other things that purport to define us as human beings.

This can easily turn into a pissing match and I definitely do not want that. But, I disagree with you.

You say that sensation can not be denied and I will agree to a point. We can choose to ignore sensations. Millions of people do it every day. Millions of people have arthritis so bad they are in constant pain, yet they choose to ignore it and continue with their daily chores. The sensation can not be denied but the choice can be made to ignore it.

Your next paragraph totally boggles my mind. It sounds like you are saying that because you are a homosexual that your sense of beauty, pleasure and life are so much better than the straight guy's. I couldn't accept that if you fed it to me with a spoon.

But why did you skip over the on topic portion of my post? Is it because it is a fact that labels hurt and even get people killed because of them? They do you know. So, if you want to label Jack or Ennis a queer that is your right to do. But if they were real people you would be putting them at great risk. Wouldn't it be a much better life if there were no labels, just different people with different likes and dislikes?

Wouldn't you prefer your boss introduced a new employee to you as, 'And this is Thomas. Thomas knows everything about this job and place. You got any questions he is the one to see.'  Or would you prefer, 'And this is Thomas. Thomas knows everything about this job and place. You got any questions he is the one to see. And oh, by the way, Thomas is a fag so be careful around him in the men's room.' Or perhaps you would like it better if the boss just bypassed you all together and introduced him to someone with a lot less knowledge than you and all because the boss had placed a label on you.

Labels hurt people.

Just look at the athletes that have come out of the closet. You never hear about them any more, because they have been labeled queers.

So you can go on with your labeling discussion if you want. It is no skin off of my nose, to put it politely. But Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation is of no consequence to this movie. They are just two guy who fell in love.  And the sooner gay and straight people stop putting labels on people the sooner we will live in a better world.

[tpe]

Patriot1, I agree that this should not be a match, especially since I think this is veering further and further away from the original topic.

I still beg to disagree.  I shall comment on just one item in your post, and let everything stand by their own merits.  You are free to respond to this post.  I promise you that I shall not respond to it.  But let it be said that should this topic proceed any further beyond a possible response from you (be it from me or you), then let the other moderators delete it as OOT.

Let me just respond to this one point.  You said:

This can easily turn into a pissing match and I definitely do not want that. But, I disagree with you.

You say that sensation can not be denied and I will agree to a point. We can choose to ignore sensations. Millions of people do it every day. Millions of people have arthritis so bad they are in constant pain, yet they choose to ignore it and continue with their daily chores. The sensation can not be denied but the choice can be made to ignore it.

What I said was this:

We can interpret sensations any way we want or CHOOSE to want, but we CANNOT DENY sensations.

Observe that just because one wants to ignore constant pain DOES NOT MEAN that the sensation DOES NOT EXIST.  To deny is not the same as to ignore.

Sensation is first and foremost a mental faculty that responds to stimuli. You cannot deny a mental process unless you are brain-dead.

Let this be my final post on the subject.

[Patriot1]

You say that sensation can not be denied and I will agree to a point. We can choose to ignore sensations. Millions of people do it every day. Millions of people have arthritis so bad they are in constant pain, yet they choose to ignore it and continue with their daily chores. The sensation can not be denied but the choice can be made to ignore it.

What I said was this:

We can interpret sensations any way we want or CHOOSE to want, but we CANNOT DENY sensations.

Observe that just because one wants to ignore constant pain DOES NOT MEAN that the sensation DOES NOT EXIST.  To deny is not the same as to ignore.

Sensation is first and foremost a mental faculty that responds to stimuli. You cannot deny a mental process unless you are brain-dead.

You just said the exact same thing I did. So, you must agree with me.

Now, would you like to respond to that portion of my post which was on topic?


Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation doesn't matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. The fact they loved each other does. Would the movie have been different if they were both straight? Would it have been different if they were both gay? Or would it have been different if one was gay and the other straight?  I don't think so. The movie wasn't about their sexual orientation. It was about two men who fell in love, albeit one much later than the other.

HOWEVER, the movie WAS about putting labels on people and how putting labels on people can be deadly and can destroy a person's life. If people didn't put labels on others Rich and Earl would have lived out their lives and Ennis would not have been subjected to the horror he was. And if people didn't put labels on others and Ennis had not seen Earl dead because of labels, he and Jack just might have gone off and had that sweet life together.

And by the way, how did the town's people know Earl and Rich were queer and were having sex? Did they do it in the streets? Did they go around town telling everyone they saw? Earl and Rich could have been two guys running a ranch together and could have been perfectly straight. But the town's people put a label on them and one died because of that label.

Labels hurt people.

Just look at the athletes that have come out of the closet. You never hear about them any more, because they have been labeled queers.

So you can go on with your labeling discussion if you want. It is no skin off of my nose, to put it politely. But Jack and Ennis' sexual orientation is of no consequence to this movie. They are just two guy who fell in love.  And the sooner gay and straight people stop putting labels on people the sooner we will live in a better world.

[welshwitch]

But we do label people, every day. for the sake of xonvenience -"This is Jan. She's a shopaholic" OK, frivolous eg but it makes the point. What you're objecting to, as most decent people do, is the use of labels seen to be derogatory and used to discriminate against people when they're associated with fasle claims. "This is X - he's black," is a label; it becomes derogatory if you add " so he's only good at sport." Or when the label you use you know to have dangerous connotations in the place/context where you're using it. These days to describe someone as balck is very different from doing the same in let's say Mississippi in the 50s.

So to say Jack is gay isn't derogatory ( accepting for a moment that it's true, as some people don't) and doesn't imply any sort of value judgement unless and until you know that the person making the statement hates gays - or for that matter loves them. Of course we label people by what they say and do, and we may be wrong, but fallibility is part of the human condition, as is the desire to classify and simplify. Unfortunately any simplification or classification is a blunt instrument. 

[tpe]

Thanks all.  We can certainly agree to disagree here. 

I think the subject of this thread is a valid one, and to voice out one's opinion for or against it is in keeping with the overall discussion. 

Jack's sexuality is a valid point of discussion, IMO.   I have no particular objection as to how one chooses to parameterize this subject.

[Rosie]

So to say Jack is gay isn't derogatory ( accepting for a moment that it's true, as some people don't) and doesn't imply any sort of value judgement unless and until you know that the person making the statement hates gays - or for that matter loves them. Of course we label people by what they say and do, and we may be wrong, but fallibility is part of the human condition, as is the desire to classify and simplify. Unfortunately any simplification or classification is a blunt instrument. 

Well said WW.

[monicita]

Hm, we are discussing some very sensitive issues here. Patriot, I want to tell you that I acknowledge your pain at being constantly labeled in a society that loves to label people, and being labeled as something, that has negative connotations for so many people, at that. My saying that I think this is exactly why we need to talk about sexuality, because it is being used to label people, does not mean, that I'm for using labels. I'm for analyzing them, so we can cope with them, maybe try to get rid of them, if we don't like them, or at least to share our pain.

When the word "choice" is used here (at least when I use it), I am not saying, that I think it is like choosing a blouse or a house. Sexual preference, sexual identity is something we do not "choose" in that sense. I am trying to say that choices are "coded" by society. As you rightly say: why would one want to choose a label that has negative associations? I think, because things are not that easy, in individual life or in society. I believe that the choice is often enough not even our own individual one: It is informed by the society we grow up in, our parents, our surroundings, our mother toung, the gender we are ascribed. So many things. The most important thing for me here is that there is always possibility for change. And I do not mean, anybody should have to change their internal makeup. But societies can change, attitudes can change, whole worldviews and labels can change. And I do want to change those, especially the ones that seem to be hurting you so much.

 Patriot,  not for being gay, or not, not because or in spite of being angry or sad. But because you are a human being in pain, and all human pain is there to be shared and, if possible, alleviated.

monicita

[CherryCake]

But still the subject is titled Jack's sexuality... not about who was branded with pink triangles  or who chooses whom to love, nor about wether labels are valid or hurt or not...
Jack may or not be gay or on any part of the sexuality spectum... why is that up for speculation? 

[browneyes]

Do u guys remember the synopsis by Universa/Focus Features? You can read it on Yahoo.com and their website. It says that Jack and Ennis are "Both young men seem certain of their set places in the heartland--obtaining steady work, marrying, and raising a family--and yet they hunger for something beyond what they can articulate". That tells me they both had homosexual feelings/urges but both never acted upon it. And this is an official synopsis. To me this means they've both been gay all their lives.

[welshwitch]

Or just that both see their lives stretching out ahead of them and feel vaguely discontented at the unexciting prospect - they are, after all, only nineteen when the story starts.

Jack I think knows what he is but lacks the terminology to articulate it, apart from living in a place and time when to do so would be dangerous. (Ennis lacks both the terminolgy and the will to look into himself, by contrast.)

As far as labels are concerned, I was telling someone about the forum the other day and said that on it there were people fromall over the world, some were middle-aged and some were young, some weren't native speakers of English, some were male, some female, some straight, some gay. The reaction to this was entirely neutral interest - these are all labels just as, if I could see everyone, I might have said that some were tall/dark/brown-eyed, etc.

[Patriot1]

As far as labels are concerned, I was telling someone about the forum the other day and said that on it there were people fromall over the world, some were middle-aged and some were young, some weren't native speakers of English, some were male, some female, some straight, some gay. The reaction to this was entirely neutral interest - these are all labels just as, if I could see everyone, I might have said that some were tall/dark/brown-eyed, etc.

But you were not talking about one particular person either. That is not a label, it is a description.

[monicita]

I think it really is a different thing if you say about somebody "he is gay" or if you say "he has brown eyes". Everything we say depends on context. Even "he has brown eyes" might mean something dark and troubling if, say, it were said by somebody in Nazi Germany in order to signify that the person is not a blue-eyed arian, or some such rot. Normally, of course, brown eyes are not a subject about which anybody would feel very deeply in this context.  My point is, that there are no neutral descriptions. Therefore: "Jack is gay" is not a neutral description, but a label.

Cherry Cake, do I understand you rightly, that your central issue is the title of this thread? Would it be less of a problem if it were called "Was Jack gay?" or is the issue more that you would prefer discussing this kind of thing in more general terms, i.e. "why do people get labeled according to their sexual preferences?". Or maybe you just think it shouldn't be discussed at all? Hm. If you thought that, you probably wouldn't be here, so it has to be something else. 
monicita

[CherryCake]

Momicita, maybe this will help you... replace the word 'gay' with  race or gender or another aspect that invokes the ire of some people...
'I wonder if Jack is black?  How black is he?'  "when did Jack first realize he was Jewish'  'when did Ennis first get the  impression Jack was handicapped'
It seems the posts have veered off topic, but I  was questioning the interest of discussing Jack's sexuality.  Jack may or may not be gay. O.k. now what?  How will  help anything to agree whether he was or not?

[monicita]

Thanks, Cherry Cake. It does help me to understand what you meant! Don't you think that a movie, where being black or handicapped is a central issue might have this kind of discussion as well? For example if someone denies he is black  and others find out about his parents (vide: The Human Stain). Even though it isn't as fraught with fear any more as it used to be (thankfully). So why not discuss such an issue, if people feel that it is central to the story, to how it makes them feel. The important thing here is, that Jack denied he was "queer", even though many viewers think that was only because of the repressive society he was living in. If there were no reason for denying it, then there would be no reason to discuss it either. But he did feel compelled to deny it. So here we are, discussing it. And rightly so: As long as being gay is something that people have to deny in order to be able to lead a life without harassment, we won't and shouldn't stop discussing what that means and why it hasn't changed yet.

Just my two cents 

monicita

[tpe]

It seems the posts have veered off topic, but I  was questioning the interest of discussing Jack's sexuality.  Jack may or may not be gay. O.k. now what?  How will  help anything to agree whether he was or not?

CherryCake , my thoughts here are the same as I had always said: it is not the final answer regarding Jack's sexuality that matters here.  The discussion of it is more revealing.

Take the word "Christian".  Some people will take this term as a badge of honor.  Some people will take this term as the epitome of everything that is wrong in the world.

You see?  It reveals more about the people who voice their opinion about it, rather than about the term itself.

[CherryCake]

Discussing issues and ideas is one thing, and, that, I never intended to question... of course not.  In fact, it should be encouraged and rightly so.  But the whole 'is he gay, is he not?'  like so often happens with celebrities, which, in somewhat weird way, Jack is, doesn't seem productive.. can even be sometimes downright vicious and petty.  Jack even summed it up pretty nicely I think : "Ain't nobodys business but ours.'  and I think we all agree with that, right?

one of my favorites quotes:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
    Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962)


please know that I am in no way calling anyone in here 'small minds'  The love,wisdom,  encouragement, strength and insights I have found from people on here warms my heart everyday and gives hope of a better human kind.   That was just one of my favorite quotes. Actually I think we could all live together in a giant tent.  That is, if stacp and noreins would quiet down, goin' on about Ennis and Jack's reunion kiss and all... 

Thanks-Cherrycake

[chameau]

That's one very good post Cherrycake, thank you for sharing. 

[Rosie]

......... Actually I think we could all live together in a giant tent.  That is, if stacp and noreins would quiet down, goin' on about Ennis and Jack's reunion kiss and all...

  Where's that tent? .....Show me the WAY! 

[tpe]

Discussing issues and ideas is one thing, and, that, I never intended to question... of course not.  In fact, it should be encouraged and rightly so.  But the whole 'is he gay, is he not?'  like so often happens with celebrities, which, in somewhat weird way, Jack is, doesn't seem productive.. can even be sometimes downright vicious and petty.  Jack even summed it up pretty nicely I think : "Ain't nobodys business but ours.'  and I think we all agree with that, right?

one of my favorites quotes:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
    Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962)


please know that I am in no way calling anyone in here 'small minds'  The love,wisdom,  encouragement, strength and insights I have found from people on here warms my heart everyday and gives hope of a better human kind.   That was just one of my favorite quotes. Actually I think we could all live together in a giant tent.  That is, if stacp and noreins would quiet down, goin' on about Ennis and Jack's reunion kiss and all... 

Thanks-Cherrycake

Thanks Cheerycake.

The problem that invariably invades every discussion like this is that it intrinsically involves people.  Jack's sexuality is, of course, a fictitious sexuality, which means that discussing whether or not he is gay necessarily means discussing what each of us think what constitutes gayness. 

Real people of course use labels all the time as reference points to more complex ideas.  The depth in which a label is imbued depends on the individual.  Simple minds imbue a label with simplistic back-or-white concepts.  Thoughtful people imbue labels with thoughtful insights into a whole world of ideas that every human concept embodies.

Hence, the designation of labels is never going to be avoided so long as human beings exist and communicate via speech, signs, and symbols.

What is a label?

What is a symbol?

A label/symbol can be a caricature, if the mind so wills it.

Mercifully, human nature invariably thirsts for greater meaning.  We are never content to accept life at face-value.  We continue to ask questions.  We care not, in the final analysis, whether some get answered or not.

[Patriot1]

Hence, the designation of labels is never going to be avoided so long as human beings exist and communicate via speech, signs, and symbols.

Thomas. how can you say such a thing? Of course labels can be avoided. I showed you that in my example of your boss introducing a new employee to you. In my first example he avoided labeling you completely. Why? Because it was not relevant to the introduction.

Jack's and Ennis' sexuality is not relevant to the movie. I will repeat the question; if Jack and Ennis were straight, would the movie have changed? If Jack and Ennis were gay, would it have changed the movie? If one was gay and one was straight, would it have changed the movie? The movie wasn't about who was gay and who was straight. The movie was about two young men who unexpectedly fall in love.

Labels must be avoided at all costs.

You and I have known each other for 2 years. We work together. We have been out socially together. We have talked about gay things together.

One day you and a friend are downtown shopping. Here I come down the street toward you. I stop to say hello. You introduce me to your friend. Do you say George I would like you to meet my gay friend Bill?  Of course not. While we are talking on the street you realize that I just might be interested in dating Bill and I am doing everything in my power to make you aware of it without coming right out and saying it. We part. You tell Bill you think I was interested in him. He asks, is he gay? Do you say, Yes, I have known him for two years now. Or do you say, Well, I don't really know. We have never been to bed together. The second reply avoids the label and is the only true answer you can give. By giving the second answer you are leaving it up to Bill and I to label ourselves to each other if we wish to.  Bill and I meet and after some time we decide to share a house together.

Five years after we move in you are at work and you have to tell Betty, a co-employee, that you have to leave early because you have to buy an anniversary present for a party you are going to tonight. Betty asks whose anniversary. You say your friends George and Bill. Betty asks Are they gay? What answer can you give? What answer do you give? Well, the only true answer you can give is to say, I don't know. All you know is we are best friends and have been sharing a house together for five years today and that we are having a party. Have you ever see us in bed? No. Once again you have avoided the label.

We have become so accustomed to labeling everything and everyone that it seems like labeling can not be avoided, but it can. All we can say for sure are the facts that we know personally. And even if Bill or I come to you and tell you of our bedroom activities, you have no first hand knowledge of them so you should, and can, avoid using hearsay to label us.

But, we as humans love to tell the juiciest gossip and probably will never avoid labels completely, but we should try. Labels can hurt people.

So what are the facts of this movie as regards Jack Twist? Jack Twist loved Ennis del Mar. What are we going to do now Jack asks in the motel. We can get a little cow and calf operation together. And sometimes I miss you so much I can hardly stand it. These show us that Jack loved Ennis. Do they show that Jack is gay? No they do not. These two men formed a special and deep bond together. Just because Jack liked to receive anal intercourse does not make him gay. We all know straight men who love the sensation of anal intercourse and that does not make them gay.

What is the most that can be said of Jack Twist's sexuality? Well, his best friend was Ennis del Mar, they had a special and deep friendship and they both denied being gay. Other than that, I don't know nor do I care what  Jack's sexuality is. It is not relevant to the movie.