Topic: was ennis gay ?

[athena0204]

I don't believe Ennis would have opened up to Cassie in the way he opened up to Jack, I believe Jack had the exact set of qualities and treated Ennis in the exact sort of way to make him open up, and that no other person could have done this, unless they were exactly like Jack, and of course Jack was very unique. Cassie, while her personality was similar in many ways to Jack, wasn't exactly like Jack, she was her own person with her own set of qualities, and not the exact set that brought out the ability and capacity of Ennis to love so truly and deeply. I don't believe either Ennis nor Jack was more or less "gay" than the other. I just believe they both had the potential to fall in love with a man, and they both had the ability and understanding of true love that enabled them to love so deeply and purely. And I'm glad that Ennis found his true love in this life, because although the circumstances they were in and although his fear made it difficult for them to be together, Ennis experienced something he would have never experienced in this life had Jack not come along. It was also something that enabled his soul to grow as well. It was destiny that their souls were brought together, it was meant to be. They are two human souls on a journey that's forever intertwined. Thanks again, lancecowboy. 

[lancecowboy]

I don't believe Ennis would have opened up to Cassie in the way he opened up to Jack, I believe Jack had the exact set of qualities and treated Ennis in the exact sort of way to make him open up, and that no other person could have done this, unless they were exactly like Jack, and of course Jack was very unique. Cassie, while her personality was similar in many ways to Jack, wasn't exactly like Jack, she was her own person with her own set of qualities, and not the exact set that brought out the ability and capacity of Ennis to love so truly and deeply. I don't believe either Ennis nor Jack was more or less "gay" than the other. I just believe they both had the potential to fall in love with a man, and they both had the ability and understanding of true love that enabled them to love so deeply and purely. And I'm glad that Ennis found his true love in this life, because although the circumstances they were in and although his fear made it difficult for them to be together, Ennis experienced something he would have never experienced in this life had Jack not come along. It was also something that enabled his soul to grow as well. It was destiny that their souls were brought together, it was meant to be. They are two human souls on a journey that's forever intertwined. Thanks again, lancecowboy. 

You are welcome athena.

We can agree to disagree. I see Ennis and Jack as unique, both as individuals and as a couple. As I said, it is not just Jack as a person, but also their experience that summer on Brokeback, which made Ennis attracted to Jack, and opened up the way he did to Jack, SNIT and all that.

Cassie has the potential to be like Jack, but as you said, she isn't and Ennis and her are not.

I like that last sentence...They are two human souls on a journey that's forever intertwined. You bet. 

[athena0204]

You are welcome athena.

We can agree to disagree. I see Ennis and Jack as unique, both as individuals and as a couple. As I said, it is not just Jack as a person, but also their experience that summer on Brokeback, which made Ennis attracted to Jack, and opened up the way he did to Jack, SNIT and all that.

Cassie has the potential to be like Jack, but as you said, she isn't and Ennis and her are not.

I like that last sentence...They are two human souls on a journey that's forever intertwined. You bet. 

They are both unique, you're right. I don't believe one was more "gay" than the other, I believe they both had the potential to truly love a man, and they were each destined to find that man, which they did in each other. Their experience on Brokeback Mountain the first summer they met, gave them an ideal setting for their love to blossom. Neither one knew they would fall in love that summer when they first got there, but both of them left with their lives changed forever. It was the time in their lives that was right for them to meet each other. Their journey and their epic, true love go far beyond this life and far beyond this world as well. They are two souls who will always be together, and that's what matters. 

[tpe]

I agree that labels color people's perception of themselves and the world around them, sometimes with devastating consequences. It is especially true with "I ain't queer." It is commendable for the Queer Nation to take back the meaning of the word, and turn a hateful weapon into a source of pride. However, by definition, this commendable process says a lot about the meaninglessness of labels. We are who we say we are, not what labels say we are. That is my point.

I don't profess to know the history of the words that describe men-men sex. There was also the discussion, about gay, homosexual, etc. Those words originally described only sexual relations, not love. We have extended the meaning to include loving relations, and that is the other point. Gay love evolved over the ages not because it did or did not exist back then, but because society did not perceive it, did not allow it, did not acknowledge it. Greek literature has male lovers yet they are often not called homosexuals but friends. Why? Because the labels don't fit the phenomenon. The phenomenon transcends the label. To force a square peg through a round hole is an exercise in futility, in my opinion.

Just to note that the term "gay" was not originally intended for just sexual relations. 

It is famously used in a "notorious" poem written by Lord Alfred Douglas around 1894-1895, who was of course in the inner circle of Oscar Wilde.  This is sometimes cited as one of the earliest uses of the term "gay" in the English language and explicitly refers to the word in the context of a man loving another man.

It is cited in the excellent book "The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde".  I will try to find the poem online, if I can.

On to a different topic, "Everything has its honeymoon." is an interesting assertion. It applies to Ennis and Jack as well.

We have discussed in other threads the evolution of their relationship, from the reunion to the days sitting around the fire, by the river, drinking and talking. Does that mean Ennis and Jack are falling out of love?

We also discussed the importance of friendship, of doing things together, sharing the same interests, 'em days on Brokeback Mountain when the two shared goals, overcame obstacles, together. Alma and Ennis grew apart because they shared different goals: she wanted more material comfort, he just wanted Jack (or to make it gender neutral Jane). Their marriage broke apart for many reasons, not just because Ennis was gay.

Ennis, before meeting Jack, was a ranch hand with indeterminate sexual preference. Once living life together with Jack on the mountain for a couple months, Ennis was gay. Shrodinger's cat is alive.

EnnisJack was a gay couple. Ennis by himself, is only half of a whole; gay or straight is irrelevant. Jack is gay because that's what he brings to the relationship, among other things. Jack is the man that opened the box and let out Ennis' cat.

The end of a honeymoon doesn't of course imply falling out of love.   But when hard realities kick in, a relationship has to weather more than just lovers' quarrels and disagreements.  There is, of course, the reality of living a relationship within the context of the society they are embedded in.  It requires as much of friendship as of love.  And although Jack perhaps was the one who opened the box, he was as much emotionally and spiritually indebted to Ennis inasmuch as it was through Ennis that Jack found himself as both a lover and as a friend.

[lancecowboy]

Just to note that the term "gay" was not originally intended for just sexual relations. 

It is famously used in a "notorious" poem written by Lord Alfred Douglas around 1894-1895, who was of course in the inner circle of Oscar Wilde.  This is sometimes cited as one of the earliest uses of the term "gay" in the English language and explicitly refers to the word in the context of a man loving another man.

It is cited in the excellent book "The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde".  I will try to find the poem online, if I can.

That' s an interesting bit of "gay" history. I won't get into the precise moment when gay love was liberated in the literature. My point is NOT that it did not exist. My point is that mainstream society (not the gay people) viewed it differently. Again the perception thing. As late as the 80s, mainstream society still viewed gay culture as dominated by sex and promiscuity. Perceptions took a long time, and many courageous pioneers to change. The outing of athletes and prominent public figures helped. But I digress.

The end of a honeymoon doesn't of course imply falling out of love.   But when hard realities kick in, a relationship has to weather more than just lovers' quarrels and disagreements.  There is, of course, the reality of living a relationship within the context of the society they are embedded in.  It requires as much of friendship as of love.  And although Jack perhaps was the one who opened the box, he was as much emotionally and spiritually indebted to Ennis inasmuch as it was through Ennis that Jack found himself as both a lover and as a friend.

That is true. After Ennis and Alma return from their honeymoon, they were faced with the hard reality of raising children and poverty. This highlight their separate goals and their falling out of love. Even Ennis and Jack, after their initial reunion, they only had their camping trip to keep the friendship going. Although it was enough for Ennis, it was not enough for Jack. The final confrontation was as much a falling out as they could get. But they were soul mates with each other. Nothing changed.

If Ennis was simply gay, and not Jacksexual, then they would've parted company and moved on to the next fornication, to use a phrase from "Later Days". Even Jack, in his attempt to move, couldn't quit Ennis. "I wish I knew how to quit you." speaks to the transcendental nature of their relationship.

They are both unique, you're right. I don't believe one was more "gay" than the other, I believe they both had the potential to truly love a man, and they were each destined to find that man, which they did in each other. Their experience on Brokeback Mountain the first summer they met, gave them an ideal setting for their love to blossom. Neither one knew they would fall in love that summer when they first got there, but both of them left with their lives changed forever. It was the time in their lives that was right for them to meet each other. Their journey and their epic, true love go far beyond this life and far beyond this world as well. They are two souls who will always be together, and that's what matters. 

I just realized, reading your statement, that it is not about which one is more gay, but rather, which one is more homophobic.

Ennis is definitely the one which is more homophobic.

[athena0204]

I just realized, reading your statement, that it is not about which one is more gay, but rather, which one is more homophobic.

Ennis is definitely the one which is more homophobic.

Yes, Jack was always more open and who he was, and didn't really care who knew. But Ennis thought he was just protecting both Jack and himself by keeping themselves apart, and he did have a right to feel that way in such a society. In the end I think he realizes they would have been safer together.

[tpe]

That' s an interesting bit of "gay" history. I won't get into the precise moment when gay love was liberated in the literature. My point is NOT that it did not exist. My point is that mainstream society (not the gay people) viewed it differently. Again the perception thing. As late as the 80s, mainstream society still viewed gay culture as dominated by sex and promiscuity. Perceptions took a long time, and many courageous pioneers to change. The outing of athletes and prominent public figures helped. But I digress.

This might be a digression, but I would like to comment that this is not exactly true.  In England, despite stringent puritanical laws, homosexuality between men of the upper classes was not exactly viewed as dominated by sex and promiscuity.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  And ironically, homosexual relationships in the context of the lower classes were implicitly recognized and (in some quarters) accepted/assumed.  What was objected to were relationships between men of different classes -- which was considered subversive to the social order.  In such cases, the law was selectively applied to punish the offenders.   

And incidentally, the Code Napoleon in 19th century France recognized homosexual relationships early on -- implying that it wasn't just about casual sex and promiscuity, but something more stable and established.

If Ennis was simply gay, and not Jacksexual, then they would've parted company and moved on to the next fornication, to use a phrase from "Later Days". Even Jack, in his attempt to move, couldn't quit Ennis. "I wish I knew how to quit you." speaks to the transcendental nature of their relationship.

Well, for me, to be "gay" doesn't mean that one moves from one fornication to the next.  The stereotype here is again rooted in associating the origins and meaning of the term "gay" with the promiscuous aspects of the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, which I have already shown to be inaccurate.

[lancecowboy]

The discussion has been moved from one context to the next.

You originally used "gay" in the generic context, so I responded in the sense of the big picture, i.e. historical for most cultures.

Then you jumped into the specific case of Oscar Wilde with Lord Alfred Douglas. And now expand to the upper British class. And then refer to your own view on "gay".

As I pointed out from the beginning, and you prove this very well, labels are imprecise and context dependent, and really can only be used as a guide for approximation. ANY attempt to make it precise and dominant is an exercise in futility.

This might be a digression, but I would like to comment that this is not exactly true.  In England, despite stringent puritanical laws, homosexuality between men of the upper classes was not exactly viewed as dominated by sex and promiscuity.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  And ironically, homosexual relationships in the context of the lower classes were implicitly recognized and (in some quarters) accepted/assumed.  What was objected to were relationships between men of different classes -- which was considered subversive to the social order.  In such cases, the law was selectively applied to punish the offenders.   

No offense to the British, but their sexual frustration is well-known, not only in homosexual matters, i.e. public school boarding school hazing etc, but also in heterosexual matters. The phrase Victorian comes to mind. I don't think it is a fair application to use the British model to judge universal human qualities. I won't even get into the hypocritical class inequalities, where aristocracies get away with much more than the lower classes. Alan Turing was another victim of this system. But that's another topic.

And incidentally, the Code Napoleon in 19th century France recognized homosexual relationships early on -- implying that it wasn't just about casual sex and promiscuity, but something more stable and established.

Well, for me, to be "gay" doesn't mean that one moves from one fornication to the next.  The stereotype here is again rooted in associating the origins and meaning of the term "gay" with the promiscuous aspects of the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, which I have already shown to be inaccurate.

As I said, the discussion is not about how gay people perceive the label gay, as much as how mainstream society perceive the label gay. As far as Ennis is concerned, he ain't queer, using the perception that his father, and society in general used the term. I am fairly certain Ennis had no knowledge of Oscar Wilde, or the Stonewall riot. He did mention something about Denver, so he was NOT totally ignorant, but that "gay" world is literally another world for him. Again, we return to the imprecision and ambiguities of labels.

We can continue to chase this circular argument over and over without conclusion, and miss the point of the movie. As Heath pointed out, the movie is not about two gay cowboys, but two SOULS in love. To chase after the gay angle is pointless. In my opinion. Why don't we chase after the ranch hand angle? Because it is not as glamorous as the cowboy angle. Why do we chase after the gay angle? Because it satisfy some need for validation. I am happy to accept Ennis the way he is, gay or not, cowboy or ranch hand, handsome or plain, old or young, whatever.

A soul has no material qualities. Just my two cents.

[tpe]

The discussion has been moved from one context to the next.

You originally used "gay" in the generic context, so I responded in the sense of the big picture, i.e. historical for most cultures.

Then you jumped into the specific case of Oscar Wilde with Lord Alfred Douglas. And now expand to the upper British class. And then refer to your own view on "gay".

As I pointed out from the beginning, and you prove this very well, labels are imprecise and context dependent, and really can only be used as a guide for approximation. ANY attempt to make it precise and dominant is an exercise in futility.

No offense to the British, but their sexual frustration is well-known, not only in homosexual matters, i.e. public school boarding school hazing etc, but also in heterosexual matters. The phrase Victorian comes to mind. I don't think it is a fair application to use the British model to judge universal human qualities. I won't even get into the hypocritical class inequalities, where aristocracies get away with much more than the lower classes. Alan Turing was another victim of this system. But that's another topic.

Most cultures?  If I recall correctly, only the Judeo-Christian tradition had any moralistic problems about homosexuality.  In Asia, they are wont to say that homosexuality had never been a moral issue for them.

Labels are imprecise?  ALL language is an approximation of abstract concepts.  Should we drop using words just because they don't capture the full meaning of thease concepts?   Strictly speaking, EVERY word in EVERY language is a LABEL. 

As I said, the discussion is not about how gay people perceive the label gay, as much as how mainstream society perceive the label gay. As far as Ennis is concerned, he ain't queer, using the perception that his father, and society in general used the term. I am fairly certain Ennis had no knowledge of Oscar Wilde, or the Stonewall riot. He did mention something about Denver, so he was NOT totally ignorant, but that "gay" world is literally another world for him. Again, we return to the imprecision and ambiguities of labels.

We can continue to chase this circular argument over and over without conclusion, and miss the point of the movie. As Heath pointed out, the movie is not about two gay cowboys, but two SOULS in love. To chase after the gay angle is pointless. In my opinion. Why don't we chase after the ranch hand angle? Because it is not as glamorous as the cowboy angle. Why do we chase after the gay angle? Because it satisfy some need for validation. I am happy to accept Ennis the way he is, gay or not, cowboy or ranch hand, handsome or plain, old or young, whatever.

A soul has no material qualities. Just my two cents.

Well, I am in the opinion that the soul and the body are tied intrinsically with each other -- a very Greek concept, I would say.  But I think I know what you mean.

Let us leave it at that.  I have expounded so many times what I think is the futility of this discussion about "labels", because for me, it does not hold water -- from the standpoint of history or linguistics.  Such a bias has no foundation, IMO.

[lancecowboy]

Most cultures?  If I recall correctly, only the Judeo-Christian tradition had any moralistic problems about homosexuality.  In Asia, they are wont to say that homosexuality had never been a moral issue for them.

When you say "moral", it appears to be equivalent to "religious" in which case, you mean Judeo-Christian, but that applies to Muslims, too.

However, if "moral" refers to a broader social aspect of "accepted correct behavior", then Asian cultures also have deep roots against/discriminate against homosexuality. No matter how you slice it, the label carries negative/undesirable meaning that no one would choose to be gay. The point here, is homophobia, the fear of being something you are. And more generically, as Tony pointed out in another thread, it is about fear of love. Ennis was tormented by his fear of love, and his yearning for love. That is the point of the movie.

Labels are imprecise?  ALL language is an approximation of abstract concepts.  Should we drop using words just because they don't capture the full meaning of thease concepts?   Strictly speaking, EVERY word in EVERY language is a LABEL. 

Agreed. It is why logic expositions using words/labels often fail where a short poem or a work of art can convey volumes. It is the very nature of words/labels that restrict them from expressing what are meaningful and important. Poetry transcends logic, and conveys sublime abstract concepts using fuzzy labels. It is when labels are fuzzy, and treated as such, that the power of language is fully realized. To wish to make labels more precise, to insist on precision, is to fall into the trap of the logicians and many other sophist and philosophers who became more concerned about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, instead of appreciating the glory and beauty of angels.

Well, I am in the opinion that the soul and the body are tied intrinsically with each other -- a very Greek concept, I would say.  But I think I know what you mean.

Let us leave it at that.  I have expounded so many times what I think is the futility of this discussion about "labels", because for me, it does not hold water -- from the standpoint of history or linguistics.  Such a bias has no foundation, IMO.

Yes, we can agree to disagree and leave it at. I am thankful for this forum for opportunities to exchange different ideas, because the process helps me to learn, and to see more clearly. 

[tpe]

When you say "moral", it appears to be equivalent to "religious" in which case, you mean Judeo-Christian, but that applies to Muslims, too.

However, if "moral" refers to a broader social aspect of "accepted correct behavior", then Asian cultures also have deep roots against/discriminate against homosexuality. No matter how you slice it, the label carries negative/undesirable meaning that no one would choose to be gay. The point here, is homophobia, the fear of being something you are. And more generically, as Tony pointed out in another thread, it is about fear of love. Ennis was tormented by his fear of love, and his yearning for love. That is the point of the movie.

This is debatable.  The funny thing is that I have had such a conversation with my Chinese friends who insist that Chinese civilization has never discriminated againt homosexuals (and I pointed out a few "exceptions" to this.)  There is certainly NO exception in Japan, where the love of man for man was considered the preserve of Samurai and Buddhist monks -- as a more "healthy" alternative to the "effeminate" love for a woman.

And we haven't even talked about India.  The Kama Sutra is of course documents both heterosexual and homosexual practices, and does not pass "moral" judgement on either one.

And of course, much of Classical Greek/Roman/Persian/Near-Eastern civilizations didn't discriminate.  Even in Medieval Islam, during the so-called "Golden Period", homosexuality was much more accepted (as was the drinking of wine, for instance) and even celebrated (c.f., Rumi, the 1001 Nights,  the Gulistan, etc.) 
 

Agreed. It is why logic expositions using words/labels often fail where a short poem or a work of art can convey volumes. It is the very nature of words/labels that restrict them from expressing what are meaningful and important. Poetry transcends logic, and conveys sublime abstract concepts using fuzzy labels. It is when labels are fuzzy, and treated as such, that the power of language is fully realized. To wish to make labels more precise, to insist on precision, is to fall into the trap of the logicians and many other sophist and philosophers who became more concerned about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, instead of appreciating the glory and beauty of angels.

Yes, we can agree to disagree and leave it at. I am thankful for this forum for opportunities to exchange different ideas, because the process helps me to learn, and to see more clearly. 

Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree here.  I do see and understand your point of view.   Thanks for keeping the discussion lively and interesting!

[lancecowboy]

This is debatable.  The funny thing is that I have had such a conversation with my Chinese friends who insist that Chinese civilization has never discriminated againt homosexuals (and I pointed out a few "exceptions" to this.)  There is certainly NO exception in Japan, where the love of man for man was considered the preserve of Samurai and Buddhist monks -- as a more "healthy" alternative to the "effeminate" love for a woman.

And we haven't even talked about India.  The Kama Sutra is of course documents both heterosexual and homosexual practices, and does not pass "moral" judgement on either one.

And of course, much of Classical Greek/Roman/Persian/Near-Eastern civilizations didn't discriminate.  Even in Medieval Islam, during the so-called "Golden Period", homosexuality was much more accepted (as was the drinking of wine, for instance) and even celebrated (c.f., Rumi, the 1001 Nights,  the Gulistan, etc.) 

I don't know about Japanese and Indian practices. But since you mentioned about Monks and Samurais, I do recall Boswell wrote about early Christian monks permitting homosexual relations, and even covenants for couples. Romans and Celts also had homosexual warriors, called berserkers. These might have been accepted as special cases, but they were never part of mainstream society. In other words, you could never be homosexual and lead a normal life, as a merchant, or scholar, or king, for example. We tend to forget, in today's society full of freedom, that in the old days, freedom was a precious commodity that was privy to the privileged few. Everyone else were to follow the rules of society.
 
 

Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree here.  I do see and understand your point of view.   Thanks for keeping the discussion lively and interesting!

While looking up the meaning of cognitive maps, from another discussion, I also found the meaning for fuzzy cognitive maps, and their many applications. Your assertion that imprecise labels and fuzzy concepts carrying more weight than precise labels don't hold water, seems to be misplaced faith on the power of human reason.

Computers have a lot of precision, but they don't have understanding, precisely because labels, when precise, fail to capture the essence of the human experience. The word gay, simply is misleading and the question "Is Ennis gay?" is simply missing the point. The relevant question is, "Is Ennis homophobic?" and of course, the answer is a resounding yes. "Does Ennis love Jack?" Again the answer is yes. And finally, "Is the conflict between his homophobia and his love for Jack the force that destroyed his marriage and his chances for the sweet life?" The answer to the former is maybe, while the answer to the last is certainly.

I assert that it is not his sexuality but his fear and yearning for love, the love that he found in Jack, more than anywhere else, which tormented Ennis, even to the end.

[tpe]

I don't know about Japanese and Indian practices. But since you mentioned about Monks and Samurais, I do recall Boswell wrote about early Christian monks permitting homosexual relations, and even covenants for couples. Romans and Celts also had homosexual warriors, called berserkers. These might have been accepted as special cases, but they were never part of mainstream society. In other words, you could never be homosexual and lead a normal life, as a merchant, or scholar, or king, for example. We tend to forget, in today's society full of freedom, that in the old days, freedom was a precious commodity that was privy to the privileged few. Everyone else were to follow the rules of society.

There is certainly some evidence to support what you said regarding Christian monks.  The famous example is the school of Alcuin of York at the court of Charlemagne.  They even left a body of homoerotic verse that is quite beautiful.

It's really hard to tell what happened in the monasteries -- the rule of celebacy cam rather late with priests, but it took root very early in the monasteries, to be sure.  But one wonders whether celebacy included same-sex intimacy -- the same way that the Cluniacs allowed for lard even though the monastic rule explicitly forbad the eating of meat.

While looking up the meaning of cognitive maps, from another discussion, I also found the meaning for fuzzy cognitive maps, and their many applications. Your assertion that imprecise labels and fuzzy concepts carrying more weight than precise labels don't hold water, seems to be misplaced faith on the power of human reason.

Computers have a lot of precision, but they don't have understanding, precisely because labels, when precise, fail to capture the essence of the human experience. The word gay, simply is misleading and the question "Is Ennis gay?" is simply missing the point. The relevant question is, "Is Ennis homophobic?" and of course, the answer is a resounding yes. "Does Ennis love Jack?" Again the answer is yes. And finally, "Is the conflict between his homophobia and his love for Jack the force that destroyed his marriage and his chances for the sweet life?" The answer to the former is maybe, while the answer to the last is certainly.

I assert that it is not his sexuality but his fear and yearning for love, the love that he found in Jack, more than anywhere else, which tormented Ennis, even to the end.

Well, I do believe that labels are always approximates and that they change meaning over time.  And this has always been the premise in much of "exact" sciences, anyway.

And yes, I do agree that Ennis was homophobic...

Finally, I believe that it was both his sexuality and his fear to love -- for me,both are intrinsically bound to each other.

[lancecowboy]

There is certainly some evidence to support what you said regarding Christian monks.  The famous example is the school of Alcuin of York at the court of Charlemagne.  They even left a body of homoerotic verse that is quite beautiful.

It's really hard to tell what happened in the monasteries -- the rule of celebacy cam rather late with priests, but it took root very early in the monasteries, to be sure.  But one wonders whether celebacy included same-sex intimacy -- the same way that the Cluniacs allowed for lard even though the monastic rule explicitly forbad the eating of meat.

Thanks for the reference. Charlemagne was an interesting period of history. His court was an early mini-Renaissance and a Golden period in history. I didn't know about Alcuin, and wikipedia has a lot of interesting bits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin , including the reference to John Boswell's discussion of some poetry with homoerotic tones. I will try and find some online and start a new thread. It's worth pursuing. By the way, John Boswell was quite the pioneer in re-discovering early homosexual history. I just found on wikipedia that he died back in 1994 of AIDS. 

Well, I do believe that labels are always approximates and that they change meaning over time.  And this has always been the premise in much of "exact" sciences, anyway.

And yes, I do agree that Ennis was homophobic...

Finally, I believe that it was both his sexuality and his fear to love -- for me,both are intrinsically bound to each other.

It occurred to me, through the discussion here, that if a man who has the potential to be attracted to another man, is by definition gay, then by the same logic, a man who has the potential to be attracted to a woman, is by definition straight. In other words, most men, by that same logic is bisexual.

As I said, these labels, are not just approximate, they are fuzzy with overlapping ranges. Even the word, homophobic, can carries many levels of fear. Ennis Del Mar, for certain, is on the extreme range of homophobia.

[lancecowboy]

Thanks to tpe's reference to Alcuin's homoerotic poetry, which I haven't found yet, I have re-read some of Boswell's works available online, and found another figure prominent in early Christian and homosexual history, Ailred of Rievaulx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailred_of_Rievaulx

I'd like to start a new topic, discussing the "gay" label as perceived by different cultures and epochs in history. If the thread is not deleted by moderators, I will post the link here.

http://ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=15706.msg959576#msg959576

For now, here is a link to the portion of Boswell's work which is relevant to our current discussion. It is slightly off topic (not related to Ennis) but it spoke of homosexuality as accepted by early Christian Europe, until the year 1150. Boswell pointed out that within a short time, a wave of intolerance swept through Europe. Gay people and Jews as well as Muslims and pagans became objects of prosecution. Women also began to be subjugated to men.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1180 the Jews were expelled from France.

The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.

In other words, it is not quite correct that Judeo-Christian traditions condemn homosexuality. The condemnation is a more recent tradition.

So far as I can make out in the literature, homosexuality was tolerated as different, but not morally wrong in Rome or Greece, etc. Homophobia, along with other prejudices, xenophobia etc, came about in the 12th century, which also saw the beginning of crusades, in 1095. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Thanks again, for the interesting discussion. 

[jedibarrister]

I think Ennis also responded, in his own limited fashion, to Cassie, who also looked deeper to see more than the stoic cowboy.

I don't think we will ever know for sure if Ennis would have been happy with Cassie, if he never met Jack. Would have, and hypothetical are not very meaningful.

I think there was a special bond  between Ennis and Jack not only because of the men themselves, but also the circumstances on that mountain. The shared experiences drew them closer together like no other. If Ennis and Cassie were to share similar experiences, for example, running a bar together in town, or whatever, the experience may help them to bond. We will never know.

Late to this discussion but in my view, Cassie was a disguise.  I saw nothing about her that was anything like Jack.  The only similarity was that she, like Jack, reached out and pierced Ennis' shield.  But otherwise, Cassie was FEMALE and Jack was MALE.  Only if Ennis was "bi" could Cassie have a shot at meaning to Ennis anything like what Jack did.  And that Ennis could simply walk away from Cassie, that he could simply ignore her and go back in his shield tells me that Cassie was simply a diversion, a last ditch effort at being "normal" and Jack's last speech to him finally showed him for what he was: queer.  So if Ennis hadn't met Jack, would he have been happy with Cassie?  No.  Because he'd still be in a crap marriage with Alma.  Alma only drew away from Ennis and the marriage after seeing her husband making out with another man and quitting jobs to spend his only vacation times with that man (and not her and their kids).  So no Jack, no failed marriage, no Cassie.  On a side note, Cassie was one sentence in the short story...further highlighting her lack of importance to Ennis or the story.

[lancecowboy]

Late to this discussion but in my view, Cassie was a disguise.  I saw nothing about her that was anything like Jack.  The only similarity was that she, like Jack, reached out and pierced Ennis' shield.  But otherwise, Cassie was FEMALE and Jack was MALE.  Only if Ennis was "bi" could Cassie have a shot at meaning to Ennis anything like what Jack did.  And that Ennis could simply walk away from Cassie, that he could simply ignore her and go back in his shield tells me that Cassie was simply a diversion, a last ditch effort at being "normal" and Jack's last speech to him finally showed him for what he was: queer.  So if Ennis hadn't met Jack, would he have been happy with Cassie?  No.  Because he'd still be in a crap marriage with Alma.  Alma only drew away from Ennis and the marriage after seeing her husband making out with another man and quitting jobs to spend his only vacation times with that man (and not her and their kids).  So no Jack, no failed marriage, no Cassie.  On a side note, Cassie was one sentence in the short story...further highlighting her lack of importance to Ennis or the story.

Welcome to the discussion, jedibarrister.

I am not fond of "what ifs" and "coulda beens" so I won't argue about Cassie's role if Ennis never met Jack.

You made an interesting point that Cassie was similar to Jack in the sense that they both pierced Ennis' shield.

I don't see Cassie as Ennis' way of pretending to be normal. I see her as his way of dealing with loneliness, like Jack's excursion to Mexico and liaison with Randall (if that existed). In a sense, the fact that Ennis could perform with Cassie, and continue a relationship that led her to fall in love with him, point to Ennis' bisexuality. I won't argue the point that he was bisexual, but I am simply saying that the jury is still out on his sexuality as far as I am concerned. All we know for certain, 100%, is that Ennis loved and yearned for only one person, Jack. The fact that Jack is a man, in my opinion, is irrelevant.

As for the breakup between Ennis and Alma, I don't think it was in the sex department, but in the relationship. They fell out of love when their goals in life no longer coincide. She wanted more, and he was content with beans.

Just my two cents.

[tpe]

Late to this discussion but in my view, Cassie was a disguise.  I saw nothing about her that was anything like Jack.  The only similarity was that she, like Jack, reached out and pierced Ennis' shield.  But otherwise, Cassie was FEMALE and Jack was MALE.  Only if Ennis was "bi" could Cassie have a shot at meaning to Ennis anything like what Jack did.  And that Ennis could simply walk away from Cassie, that he could simply ignore her and go back in his shield tells me that Cassie was simply a diversion, a last ditch effort at being "normal" and Jack's last speech to him finally showed him for what he was: queer.  So if Ennis hadn't met Jack, would he have been happy with Cassie?  No.  Because he'd still be in a crap marriage with Alma.  Alma only drew away from Ennis and the marriage after seeing her husband making out with another man and quitting jobs to spend his only vacation times with that man (and not her and their kids).  So no Jack, no failed marriage, no Cassie.  On a side note, Cassie was one sentence in the short story...further highlighting her lack of importance to Ennis or the story.

Certainly, Cassie in the movie was an amplification of the character suggested in the ss.

I think I gave similar views in another (?) thread regarding Cassie -- that she was a "disguise", as you put it.  I think part of Ennis's redemption in the end was his realization that he couldn't go on with the relationship with Cassie, and that while his withdrawal hurt her, it probably spared her a great deal of pain in the long run.

[lancecowboy]

Late to this discussion but in my view, Cassie was a disguise.  I saw nothing about her that was anything like Jack.  The only similarity was that she, like Jack, reached out and pierced Ennis' shield.  But otherwise, Cassie was FEMALE and Jack was MALE.  Only if Ennis was "bi" could Cassie have a shot at meaning to Ennis anything like what Jack did.  And that Ennis could simply walk away from Cassie, that he could simply ignore her and go back in his shield tells me that Cassie was simply a diversion, a last ditch effort at being "normal" and Jack's last speech to him finally showed him for what he was: queer.  So if Ennis hadn't met Jack, would he have been happy with Cassie?  No.  Because he'd still be in a crap marriage with Alma.  Alma only drew away from Ennis and the marriage after seeing her husband making out with another man and quitting jobs to spend his only vacation times with that man (and not her and their kids).  So no Jack, no failed marriage, no Cassie.  On a side note, Cassie was one sentence in the short story...further highlighting her lack of importance to Ennis or the story.

It just occurred to me, that it was not so much Jack and Cassie pierced Ennis' shield, because although Ennis built a castle to protect himself against emotional commitment, he did marry Alma and had relationships.

I think the metaphor to use here, in my opinion, is that Jack and Cassie are two pitchers filled with love, with affection to spare, and saw Ennis as an empty vessel that was willing to receive their affections.

No one else bothered with Ennis, saw through to his soul and understood his desires, his needs. Jack and Cassie saw, understood, and poured their heart into Ennis.

Cassie had no chance with Ennis because he was already filled with Jack's affections, and had no room for others, even though the few times a year meeting with Jack were not enough to quench his thirst for love.

Ennis and Jack were two souls, two vessels, that fitted one another that one summer on Brokeback Mountain. The rest of the movie was just about the subsequent intrusion of society into their relationship, starting with the peeping and cutting Aguierre, then the mocking minister at the wedding, and the hardship Ennis faced trying to provide for his family.

In the ideal world, when two souls meet, and one of them has the love to give to the other, and the receiving soul is made better, is healed from the love, they merge as one. Jack, in many ways, was also healed by loving Ennis, since he was always told that he was no good, except perhaps by his ma. To be needed, and to be appreciated, was to Jack, the same as to be loved.

In that sense, I think Ennis, if he never met Jack, and still somehow divorced Alma, might end up marrying Cassie in that alternate universe, simply because Cassie was good enough to fill his emptiness. They may not be the soul mates that Jack and Ennis would make, but they would be happy nonetheless.

Just my two cents.

[lancecowboy]

Certainly, Cassie in the movie was an amplification of the character suggested in the ss.

I think I gave similar views in another (?) thread regarding Cassie -- that she was a "disguise", as you put it.  I think part of Ennis's redemption in the end was his realization that he couldn't go on with the relationship with Cassie, and that while his withdrawal hurt her, it probably spared her a great deal of pain in the long run.

I don't think Ennis was trying to spare Cassie when he stopped returning her calls and messages. He was simply running away from what he realized was not for him. He knew, after the final confrontation that he could never quit Jack. And as long as he was with Jack, he couldn't make another relationship work. I think he was ready to meet Jack in November and propose to make a go with the cow and calf operation, now that the child support is almost done. He was freer to do as he pleased.

The shock on Ennis' face at the diner facing Cassie's speech, "A girl don't fall in love with fun." showed that Ennis wasn't thinking about love, nor hurting Cassie's feelings. Ennis was probably surprised that he was worthy of Cassie's love. The loner that kept to himself, saying little most of the year, probably never thought love was something that would come into his life. At that moment of recognition, that Cassie loved him, that he was love-able, he was not only thinking of the hurt he caused Cassie, but also how he wished it was Jack, that perhaps, he and Jack could love each other. At that moment, he knew the thing with no reins, the thing that neither he nor Jack could quit, was love. That's why he sent the postcard to Jack, so that Jack knew he expected to meet in November, even though he was powerless to meet in the summer.

It is why, I believe, the insertion of Cassie at the diner in the movie, made the story better than the original short story.

[manhattangirl]

I don't think Ennis was trying to spare Cassie when he stopped returning her calls and messages. He was simply running away from what he realized was not for him. He knew, after the final confrontation that he could never quit Jack. And as long as he was with Jack, he couldn't make another relationship work. I think he was ready to meet Jack in November and propose to make a go with the cow and calf operation, now that the child support is almost done. He was freer to do as he pleased.

The shock on Ennis' face at the diner facing Cassie's speech, "A girl don't fall in love with fun." showed that Ennis wasn't thinking about love, nor hurting Cassie's feelings. Ennis was probably surprised that he was worthy of Cassie's love. The loner that kept to himself, saying little most of the year, probably never thought love was something that would come into his life. At that moment of recognition, that Cassie loved him, that he was love-able, he was not only thinking of the hurt he caused Cassie, but also how he wished it was Jack, that perhaps, he and Jack could love each other. At that moment, he knew the thing with no reins, the thing that neither he nor Jack could quit, was love. That's why he sent the postcard to Jack, so that Jack knew he expected to meet in November, even though he was powerless to meet in the summer.

It is why, I believe, the insertion of Cassie at the diner in the movie, made the story better than the original short story.

I think you're right on this one.  Cassie left messages that were never responded to.  She just happened to run across him by accident.  Ennis not really being empathic to Cassie feelings,  just didn't reply to her messages or even try to see her.  Remember he even had doubts when he talked of her to Jack that last week they were together.  For me,  i think Ennis really didn't understand his feelings for Jack until he saw Cassie,  it was then he understood, or accepted, and even wanted it to be Jack in his life.  JMO

[lancecowboy]

I think you're right on this one.  Cassie left messages that were never responded to.  She just happened to run across him by accident.  Ennis not really being empathic to Cassie feelings,  just didn't reply to her messages or even try to see her.  Remember he even had doubts when he talked of her to Jack that last week they were together.  For me,  i think Ennis really didn't understand his feelings for Jack until he saw Cassie,  it was then he understood, or accepted, and even wanted it to be Jack in his life.  JMO

I think you and I are on the same wavelength, manhattengirl.

[lancecowboy]

After watching the story of Christian and Oliver in the German show, Verbotene Liebe - Forbidden Love, I have changed my mind about Ennis.  http://ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=15724.msg961032#msg961032

It occurred to me that if Ennis had met Cassie first, as Christian did with Coco, and then meet Jack afterward as Christian did with Oliver, Ennis would still end up with Jack. This would mean Ennis and Christian are gay by virtue of their soulmates being men. If they never met that singular male soul mate, they might as well be straight, it makes no difference. In other words, the labels we use are insufficient to contain the larger concept of true love.

If Ennis met Jack, then he is gay, but if he never met Jack, he is as well as straight.

Jack is the hand of love that opened Schrodinger's box, and let out Ennis' cat, alive and well. Until Jack comes along, we cannot say if the cat is alive or dead, just as Ennis' marriage, or straight relationships. In a sense, both Ennis and Christian were characters which are malleable, molding themselves, devoting their lives, to those of their partners. Without a soulmate, they were simply existing. With a soul mate, each became alive.

[vedrana]

I think you and I are on the same wavelength, manhattengirl.

I have to admit, I never gave a thought to Ennis's encounter with Casie as something significant in his understanding of Jack's feelings...

But after reading your and MG posts here, I am thinking that it is very possible that in his mind, Ennis connected Jack and Casie! They were both after him in a way. They both wanted him near, and he was refusing both, for different reasons though. But when he heard Casie mentioning the word "love", he probably thought - "Now, isn't it the same with Jack? He also wants to be with me...doesn't that mean that he loves me? And if his feelings for me are love, than mine are too!" He got the truth right there...

Yup! Now this scenario is much more clear and acceptable in my head!

  It took me a year to get here! 

[vedrana]

After watching the story of Christian and Oliver in the German show, Verbotene Liebe - Forbidden Love, I have changed my mind about Ennis.  http://ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=15724.msg961032#msg961032

It occurred to me that if Ennis had met Cassie first, as Christian did with Coco, and then meet Jack afterward as Christian did with Oliver, Ennis would still end up with Jack. This would mean Ennis and Christian are gay by virtue of their soulmates being men. If they never met that singular male soul mate, they might as well be straight, it makes no difference. In other words, the labels we use are insufficient to contain the larger concept of true love.

If Ennis met Jack, then he is gay, but if he never met Jack, he is as well as straight.

Jack is the hand of love that opened Schrodinger's box, and let out Ennis' cat, alive and well. Until Jack comes along, we cannot say if the cat is alive or dead, just as Ennis' marriage, or straight relationships. In a sense, both Ennis and Christian were characters which are malleable, molding themselves, devoting their lives, to those of their partners. Without a soulmate, they were simply existing. With a soul mate, each became alive.

Beautifully said and I tend to agree with this.  - The labels we use are insufficient!

Great post, Lance!

[trekfan]

to me Ennis was most certainly gay. (or queer, the terminology of the time and one word Ennis understood. )    but he could never admit it to himself.   Jack was queer (I know what they have for guys like you in Mexico)   he was the one to blame for making Ennis the way he was.   Maybe he even blames Jack for being careless and getting killed by the tire irons (I believe it happened the way Lureen said it did by accident) 

They found their soulmates up on BBM.   They completed each other like no one else could  But Ennis could never see his way clear to give Jack that sweet life he wanted.  How to keep himself safe and Jack safe.   Two men living together,  no, no way.  Can't happen, not in Ennis' mind.

it's so sad.   they belonged together

[lancecowboy]

I have to admit, I never gave a thought to Ennis's encounter with Casie as something significant in his understanding of Jack's feelings...

But after reading your and MG posts here, I am thinking that it is very possible that in his mind, Ennis connected Jack and Casie! They were both after him in a way. They both wanted him near, and he was refusing both, for different reasons though. But when he heard Casie mentioning the word "love", he probably thought - "Now, isn't it the same with Jack? He also wants to be with me...doesn't that mean that he loves me? And if his feelings for me are love, than mine are too!" He got the truth right there...

Yup! Now this scenario is much more clear and acceptable in my head!

  It took me a year to get here! 

Beautifully said, Loreen.

It only took me two years to get here. 

[myprivatejack]

Beautifully said, Loreen.

It only took me two years to get here. 

I quote this,although maybe I win you both in time to get here... Speaking seriously,I agree with what Lance says in another thread;that Ennis would have been straight during all his life by being married,a happy and devoted husband and father.But that if he had met his soulmate in another man afterbeing married,he had became gay,maybe,almost surely his real and deepest way of being and feeling.The problem in Ennis is that,whereas this young man in the German TV movie,breaks up with his girlfriend to be responsible with what he feels,Ennis had never accepted this,what has meant his and their tragedy.

[lancecowboy]

I quote this,although maybe I win you both in time to get here... Speaking seriously,I agree with what Lance says in another thread;that Ennis would have been straight during all his life by being married,a happy and devoted husband and father.But that if he had met his soulmate in another man afterbeing married,he had became gay,maybe,almost surely his real and deepest way of being and feeling.The problem in Ennis is that,whereas this young man in the German TV movie,breaks up with his girlfriend to be responsible with what he feels,Ennis had never accepted this,what has meant his and their tragedy.

I think that's the difference between the rural American culture in the West, in the 1960's, and the urban sophisticated Post-Brokeback Mountain German culture in Dusseldorf in the 21st century. Hopefully, there will be more Christians and Ollis in the future around the world.

Also, Christian has a loving supportive brother (well, when he is not egotistically submerged in his many torrid affairs) and many supportive friends. Also Olli is more evolved than Jack, who had his own issues. Although they both appear the same in many respects, loving, patient, devoted to their soul mate, Olli was more willing to let go of his straight persona, and has more avenue of outlets when he felt frustrated with Christian. Jack had to resort to Mexico and dangerous Randall; Olli had Timo and lots of other guys waiting in line for him. Jack had problem with his self-image, never good enough for his old man and old man Newsome. Olli was self-confident had lots of admirers, of both sexes. 

[mimi1996]

IMO, Ennis was not "gay" and, had Jack never come into the picture, would have never even considered being with another man.

BBM is a story about two people who love each other and share a deep connection, and love really does surpass any labels or sexual orientation. If two human beings are deeply, passionately in love with one another, things like age, religion, race and in this case gender simply cease to matter.