Author Topic: was ennis gay ? (Read 650970 times)

stephan · « **Reply #270 on:** Dec 12, 2006, 05:01 PM »

Quote from: Koka on Dec 12, 2006, 04:51 PM

(...) but as far a love is concerned, jack was the one who had his heart.

You bet !

aintfoolin · « **Reply #271 on:** Dec 12, 2006, 05:14 PM »

I agree with you both. The truth has been spoken in both cases. I beleive that Ennis had the capacity to be attracted to both sexes. If Jack, with his courageous personality had not drawn Ennis's deeply repressed inner feelings about himself out, he would never have engaged in gay activities. It took Jack to rock Ennis's world and turn it upside down forcing him to discover that Alma and relationships with wommen were not all their was to his sexuality. To his suprise mind you he found a another world of loving existed out there. He embraced it with Jack's help and fell deeply in love with him.

Koka · « **Reply #272 on:** Dec 12, 2006, 05:24 PM »

Quote from: aintfoolin on Dec 12, 2006, 05:14 PM

I agree with you both. The truth has been spoken in both cases. I beleive that Ennis had the capacity to be attracted to both sexes. If Jack, with his courageous personality had not drawn Ennis's deeply repressed inner feelings about himself out, he would never have engaged in gay activities. It took Jack to rock Ennis's world and turn it upside down forcing him to discover that Alma and relationships with wommen were not all their was to his sexuality. To his suprise mind you he found a another world of loving existed out there. He embraced it with Jack's help and fell deeply in love with him.

my point exactly!!!!!

but the sad truth is that, despite the fact that ennis fell in love with jack, he wasn't able to admit to himself that he was, well, gay, bi, however you want to call it! he could never embrace his sexualty, he never felt comfortable with it and with himself in general. when he was with jack, he enjoyed himself, loved every second of it, but during those periods, he would 'shut' the outside world completely out and be himself, with the man he loved, without having any second thoughts. but he could never admit to himself that it was love, he didn't want to admit it to himself. he 'knew', yes, but there's quite a bit of difference between 'knowing' and 'admitting'. because ennis KNEW but PUSHED it away, pushed those feelings away, because he somehow didn't want it to be so. he deluded himself, that's what I would call it, because he wasn't ready to live life to the fullest, to live it in all its glory. and the reason was society mostly, and the pressure ennis felt was exerted upon him by society- and BY HIMSEL!!!!....

tpe · « **Reply #273 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 11:22 AM »

It is interesting to distinguish between sexual desire and the heart's love, no? Ennis certainly seemed to have exhibited desire for both man and woman, but I do think Jack was his heart's sole love.

In a deep way, both love and desire must be connected to define a sexual identity. For me, Jack was the only one where both desire and the heart were one in Ennis. For all of us who have been blessed by a similar experience, we know in a vague sense that such a love transcends classification: it becomes neither gay nore straight -- it becomes wholly a human love.

stephan · « **Reply #274 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 03:19 PM »

Quote from: tpe on Dec 13, 2006, 11:22 AM

(...)
In a deep way, both love and desire must be connected to define a sexual identity. For me, Jack was the only one where both desire and the heart were one in Ennis. For all of us who have been blessed by a similar experience, we know in a vague sense that such a love transcends classification: it becomes neither gay nore straight -- it becomes wholly a human love.

As you know, Tom, I have rather serious misgivings with the notion of "identity", and sexual identity in particular. I wholly agree with your last sentence. However, the operation that consists in defining an identity is, imho, is a case of the intellect capitulating, of confusing a thing with the representation of that thing.
Although I am spontaneously aroused sexually only by men, whenever someone represents me as gay, then I fear that (s)he has started to see me as somebody different from the real me. (Am I making sense ?)

Koka · « **Reply #275 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 04:16 PM »

Quote from: stephan on Dec 13, 2006, 03:19 PM

As you know, Tom, I have rather serious misgivings with the notion of "identity", and sexual identity in particular. I wholly agree with your last sentence. However, the operation that consists in defining an identity is, imho, is a case of the intellect capitulating, of confusing a thing with the representation of that thing.
Although I am spontaneously aroused sexually only by men, whenever someone represents me as gay, then I fear that (s)he has started to see me as somebody different from the real me. (Am I making sense ?)

I think you're making perfect sense....but keep in mind that the fact that you are, as you stated, 'aroused sexually only by men', IS part of who you are

but I get that you're afraid that people are going to get the wrong impression about who you REALLY are ( because of your sexuality ) just because most of them can't get pass the 'tags' and think that being gay is EVERYTHING you are, that it's something that defines you as a human being entirely, as a person. but you and I both know that there's nothing 'wrong' about being gay or bi, hell, I myself am bi ( admitted it to myself a few months ago after realising deep down that all people are bi

) so I perfectly get where your fear is coming from. but you need to learn to be ABOVE it. you need to make that fear your friend and except it as part of who you are- that's the only way you'll be able to act against it ( there's a book called 'fell fear and do it anyway'- the title says it all. haven't read it though, the title just came to mind and seemed to fit here perfectly

). make it your friend, not your enemy, don't push it away

just be yourself. I'm trying to do that myself, but the problem with me is- I 'know' a lot of these things in 'theory', but when it comes to the actual realisation of them, well, let's just say I suck! but I'm most definitely working on it, because I don't want to live my entire life deluding myself and convincing myself that I'm not afraid when I truly AM! the further I keep pushing fear ( IN GENERAL! ) a way, the longer it will stay there, and I will never evolve.

stephan · « **Reply #276 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 04:23 PM »

Thanks for your post, Koka !

I believe that I need to clarify : I used the expression "I fear" but not literally. (In French, "je crains que" is not necessarily about being afraid.) To be more exact, I should say "I regret" or "I have the feeling unfortunately, that"...
But otherwise, yes. Identities are often about tags. Labels don't tell all !

Koka · « **Reply #277 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 04:39 PM »

Quote from: stephan on Dec 13, 2006, 04:23 PM

Thanks for your post, Koka !
I believe that I need to clarify : I used the expression "I fear" but not literally. (In French, "je crains que" is not necessarily about being afraid.) To be more exact, I should say "I regret" or "I have the feeling unfortunately, that"...
But otherwise, yes. Identities are often about tags. Labels don't tell all !

I see....but then again, such 'feelings' are yet again manifestations of fear ( at least I think ), one way or the other. the moment you stop thinking 'oh god, is she/he going to think that I'm this or that just because I'm gay? is she/he going to judge and lable me?' is the moment when you're going to admit to yourself that the real problem is the fear that you feel, the fear of rejection in a way, the fear that people won't even make the effort of getting to know you as a person because of their own prejudice and large super egos which society so patiently and successfully feeds.

stephan · « **Reply #278 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 04:52 PM »

Quote from: Koka on Dec 13, 2006, 04:39 PM

I see....but then again, such 'feelings' are yet again manifestations of fear ( at least I think ), one way or the other. the moment you stop thinking 'oh god, is she/he going to think that I'm this or that just because I'm gay? is she/he going to judge and lable me?' is the moment when you're going to admit to yourself that the real problem is the fear that you feel, the fear of rejection in a way (...)

Agreed. I would say that it is a question of degree, or dose.
If it is true that no rules should be absolute, then a certain degree of fear of rejection is good and even beneficient. Also, fear of rejection is part of the desire to be loved (different from the desire to be accepted) by someone different from yourself. It happens that sometimes you have to choose between being rejected by someone you love or remaining with another part of yourself. I think of a friend of mine, a French woman from a Catholic family, who was in love with a Jewish boy, but his parents would not allow her into the house unless she converted. Finally, even the boy decided it was better that they separate... she was heartbroken for months.

In a way, it was the same with Ennis. He cared for his family, he had to work to earn some money, he chose that instead of meeting Jack more often. A hard decision. I probably would have done the same thing.

tpe · « **Reply #279 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 01:36 PM »

Thanks Stephan and koka for the wonderful exchange!

I had mentioned before that Idon't mind the label "gay" as I treat it as working definition for a lot of things that may describe me. To assume that it defines me precisely is not at all realistic, of course. And by definition, a "definition" must limit and constrain, as much as it clarifies and distinguishes.

As was mentioned, so long as the term "gay" is understood as a working definition of something infinitely more complex, things are acceptable to me. Terms are, after all, paradigms for greater or deeper realities that we all take for granted as inherently understood. Tjings like "life", "love", "matter", and "essence" or "God". No single term encloses the reality it seeks to define. Such is the case with Ennis's "sexuality" and "sexual identity".

Koka · « **Reply #280 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 02:40 PM »

Quote from: tpe on Dec 14, 2006, 01:36 PM

Thanks Stephan and koka for the wonderful exchange!

I had mentioned before that Idon't mind the label "gay" as I treat it as working definition for a lot of things that may describe me. To assume that it defines me precisely is not at all realistic, of course. And by definition, a "definition" must limit and constrain, as much as it clarifies and distinguishes.

As was mentioned, so long as the term "gay" is understood as a working definition of something infinitely more complex, things are acceptable to me. Terms are, after all, paradigms for greater or deeper realities that we all take for granted as inherently understood. Tjings like "life", "love", "matter", and "essence" or "God". No single term encloses the reality it seeks to define. Such is the case with Ennis's "sexuality" and "sexual identity".

a truly tremendous post dear Thomas!!!! beautifully said, you really do wonders with words!!!!

stephan · « **Reply #281 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 04:32 PM »

Quote from: tpe on Dec 14, 2006, 01:36 PM

As was mentioned, so long as the term "gay" is understood as a working definition of something infinitely more complex, things are acceptable to me. Terms are, after all, paradigms for greater or deeper realities that we all take for granted as inherently understood. Tjings like "life", "love", "matter", and "essence" or "God". No single term encloses the reality it seeks to define. Such is the case with Ennis's "sexuality" and "sexual identity".

I can live with that, in fact I have no choice ! The difficulty is that, in practise, once you get labelled, it is next to imossible to get un-labelled. The injustice is done and might never be undone.

Koka · « **Reply #282 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 04:48 PM »

Quote from: stephan on Dec 14, 2006, 04:32 PM

Quote from: tpe on Dec 14, 2006, 01:36 PM

As was mentioned, so long as the term "gay" is understood as a working definition of something infinitely more complex, things are acceptable to me. Terms are, after all, paradigms for greater or deeper realities that we all take for granted as inherently understood. Tjings like "life", "love", "matter", and "essence" or "God". No single term encloses the reality it seeks to define. Such is the case with Ennis's "sexuality" and "sexual identity".

I can live with that, in fact I have no choice ! The difficulty is that, in practise, once you get labelled, it is next to imossible to get un-labelled. The injustice is done and might never be undone.

yes, but what I'm talking about here is that one needs to get 'pass' the fear of getting labelled and say to oneself: 'okay, people label me, it's injust but- so what!!? if those people don't want to make an effort to get to know the REAL me, well, it's THEIR loss!!!' the important thing is that YOU and the people you love and who love you know who YOU are! I know it's easier said than done, but alas, that's the only way one will manage to live a life deprived of fear and filled with utter bliss...
but hey, that's just me

stephan · « **Reply #283 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 04:58 PM »

Quote from: Koka on Dec 14, 2006, 04:48 PM

yes, but what I'm talking about here is that one needs to get 'pass' the fear of getting labelled and say to oneself: 'okay, people label me, it's injust but- so what!!? (...)

This is where I'm different from you and Tom, I suppose. I think it matters when there is injustice committed. I support not allowing people to continue committing injustice as if it was a human right ; I support educating people to STOP injustice before it happens. You cannot get past the fear of being labelled if you are murdered, like the man in BBM that Ennis saw when he was a young boy.

Koka · « **Reply #284 on:** Dec 14, 2006, 05:07 PM »

Quote from: stephan on Dec 14, 2006, 04:58 PM

Quote from: Koka on Dec 14, 2006, 04:48 PM

yes, but what I'm talking about here is that one needs to get 'pass' the fear of getting labelled and say to oneself: 'okay, people label me, it's injust but- so what!!? (...)

This is where I'm different from you and Tom, I suppose. I think it matters when there is injustice committed. I support not allowing people to continue committing injustice as if it was a human right ; I support educating people to STOP injustice before it happens. You cannot get past the fear of being labelled if you are murdered, like the man in BBM that Ennis saw when he was a young boy.

don't get me the wrong way, I was talking about a person's OWN image of oneself and about not caring what people, who aren't even WORTHY of you, say about you, how they see you and what they think. that's what I was taliking about when I said, and I quote: 'but so what?'. the mere understanding of the fact that it isn't important what other people, who aren't even WILLING to make an effort to get to know you as a human being, say or think or what their perception of you is, is the first step to get pass the fear of being rejected. because the more meaning you give to their words, the stronger they'll get- because such words and thoughts only have meaning when YOU, the person receiving them, gives them meaning. it may be injust, but I say SCREW 'EM!

but when we're talking about injustice ( in general terms ) I completely agree with you- injustice is everywhere and we should try to make a better would by teaching our children to respect other people and not to put their sexuality in a box, thereby restraining it.

tpe · « **Reply #285 on:** Dec 15, 2006, 10:22 AM »

It is my personal belief that as long as we live, we will -- to a great extent -- always live under the yoke of labels. And indeed, so many great injustices are committed in conjuction with these labels.

If it is a comfort to all of us, we should also observe that a great deal of beauty and truth shines throughout the world in the name of such labels. As I had said earlier, labels are abstract constructs -- they can have no true meaning in and of themselves. It is when the individual enters that the terms become colored by the tinge of ideals and prejudices.

I feel that it will always be that way. They reveal so much about the individual. Terms like "gay" or "sexual identity": they are blank canvases on which we paint the portrait of our common/shared humanity.

aintfoolin · « **Reply #286 on:** Dec 15, 2006, 08:50 PM »

You speak the truth Tpe, It's all about who we are as individduals. No one can really define us as well as we do our indiviual selves No matter how the scoiety chooses to lable us, it all comes down to who we really are inside, what we feel as one person, One individual. One soul. You have to represent yourself and have strong roots otherwise you let other people tell you who are and what to feel. This plilosophy can be applied to any human being wether gay, srtight, bi, or whatever. We all know there's plenty of people out there who have made it their life's mission to define other people according to their limited rules. Please, don't get me started...!I suppose Ennis had some definition of himself personally , and even he himself could'nt pinpoint it to an exact science, but we as veiwers of this film , as well as Ennis knew it involved Jack Twist, his sweet love for him, and their fight against society to love and be together. Thanks.

ragtimecowboy · « **Reply #287 on:** Dec 16, 2006, 02:17 PM »

I'll let you down gently, ennis was gay to the bone my freind. as far as Jack being promiscous, how many times does it take for one man to be pushed away, before he starts to look elsewhere? Snicker away, but one does not ride another man like a thoroughbred stallion for the duration of the summer with a "heterosexual mancrush" as the basis of it! First inkling of how deeply ennis loved was the scene when jack drove away and he got waves of nausea and a flood of tears realizing that the love of his life just drove off and he didn't have the courage to stop him. Yes it is very sad movie, but it is also one of the greatest love stories ever told.

aintfoolin · « **Reply #288 on:** Dec 16, 2006, 08:10 PM »

I'll say now that Jacks infielity was just part of being human. Watching this film now is a lot different to me after I've had a chance to get past all the initial fascination and get " deeper" into the minds of the characters I have come to the conclusion that there was no fault or blame to be placed on either of these men This had to do with two people who fell in love.,happens to be two men. What they did is deal honestly with how they had to hide their love,from a, closed minded society. Made as humanly as possible, it is a great love story so many can relate to. The story, as well as the characters themselves.Thanks

stephan · « **Reply #289 on:** Dec 17, 2006, 05:30 PM »

Quote from: aintfoolin on Dec 16, 2006, 08:10 PM

I'll say now that Jacks infielity was just part of being human. Watching this film now is a lot different to me after I've had a chance to get past all the initial fascination and get " deeper" into the minds of the characters I have come to the conclusion that there was no fault or blame to be placed on either of these men This had to do with two people who fell in love.,happens to be two men. What they did is deal honestly with how they had to hide their love,from a, closed minded society. Made as humanly as possible, it is a great love story so many can relate to. The story, as well as the characters themselves.Thanks

You bet, aintfoolin. I can never say thank you enough.

tpe · « **Reply #290 on:** Dec 18, 2006, 11:30 AM »

I appreciate the strong feeelings and wonderful thoughts shared in this thread. Whatever we chose to believe, it is our privilege as human beings to understand, as much as affirm, our own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

The question posed as the topic of this thread is a wonderful journey into who we are and what it means to be someone/something.

monicita · « **Reply #291 on:** Dec 19, 2006, 09:19 AM »

I concurr, tpe. And it is what true art does for us and to us: it makes and lets us explore our feelings and thoughts about the most difficult and important, sometimes even the shameful and hidden things we hardly dared touch on before. It is a challenge. BBM challenges me again and again, it is like a prism, I turn and turn in my hand, and it gives of light in a myriad different ways...

That is how come a simple question like "Was Ennis gay?" can make us bare our innermost feelings and open our minds to other minds. Sometimes, what I experience on some of the more "thoughtful" threads (and this is one of them) is a feeling of intimacy of the mind, of sharing my thoughts with others in a way I have seldom experienced elsewhere. I want to thank you all for this unique experience

monicita

tpe · « **Reply #292 on:** Dec 19, 2006, 09:30 AM »

Thanks also, mona.

It's a simple question without a simple answer. To answer it, we have to bare more than just a little of ourselves and our souls.

To echo your analogy, it is a prism that splits light. In the end, it's not the prism that transfixes us; it's the beam of light itself. Being human is not one monolithic definition. And being human is all the more richer because of this.

ksxks · « **Reply #293 on:** Dec 22, 2006, 01:00 AM »

God, I love what both of you just said. And monicita, so true, about the discussions on some of these threads having the effect of bringing out things in us -- and even better, sharing those things with others -- that we may not have been in touch with before. It is absolutely fascinating. The question really isn't "Was Ennis gay?" although that is a fascinating question. But that question was left open by our very wise and artistic movie makers. The questions are instead: How do we define ourselves? What is the nature of definition? What does it mean to discern things about someone else based on clues we see, which clues are colored by our own perceptions? Etc., etc. Not to turn this into some intellectual or philosophical discussion, but those philosophical elements are at root of what we're trying to discern and express to each other. And in the expressing, learn and grow, and love also. Love each other for being another of those rays of light off the prism. Moni, I love that image, BBM and you with the prism in your hand...

kathy

aintfoolin · « **Reply #294 on:** Dec 22, 2006, 06:56 AM »

I love this film.

tpe · « **Reply #295 on:** Dec 22, 2006, 08:14 AM »

Quote from: ksxks on Dec 22, 2006, 01:00 AM

God, I love what both of you just said. And monicita, so true, about the discussions on some of these threads having the effect of bringing out things in us -- and even better, sharing those things with others -- that we may not have been in touch with before. It is absolutely fascinating. The question really isn't "Was Ennis gay?" although that is a fascinating question. But that question was left open by our very wise and artistic movie makers. The questions are instead: How do we define ourselves? What is the nature of definition? What does it mean to discern things about someone else based on clues we see, which clues are colored by our own perceptions? Etc., etc. Not to turn this into some intellectual or philosophical discussion, but those philosophical elements are at root of what we're trying to discern and express to each other. And in the expressing, learn and grow, and love also. Love each other for being another of those rays of light off the prism. Moni, I love that image, BBM and you with the prism in your hand...

kathy

Well said, kathy. You pointed out correctly the true significance of this thread.

tpe · « **Reply #296 on:** Dec 22, 2006, 08:17 AM »

Quote from: aintfoolin on Dec 22, 2006, 06:56 AM

I love this film.

OOT: I know you do.

JT · « **Reply #297 on:** Dec 23, 2006, 12:03 AM »

Quote from: aintfoolin on Dec 22, 2006, 06:56 AM

I love this film.

I do too!

Magdalena · « **Reply #298 on:** Dec 23, 2006, 08:31 AM »

Quote from: aintfoolin on Dec 22, 2006, 06:56 AM

I love this film.

That is why i am here, and as i love my friend Esme as well, it was really about time i regged;)

Sprague Dawley · « **Reply #299 on:** Dec 29, 2006, 08:39 PM »

The question about whether the boys were "gay" is ENORMOUSLY important. It gets at one of the most important questions our culture is grappling with: are people who fall in love with others of the same gender essentially different (a different class), or simply humans expressing love and desire in a form less common. The implications of how the question is answered are profound.

I've written some thoughts (http://www.ratdiary.com/?p=55) on this issue that may be interesting, or unwelcome; but they are offered sincerely. I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Personally, I don't think they were gay. They were just two men in love...