Topic: was ennis gay ?

[jackster]

lachian, this is a very intelligent, clear, and concise explanation of some important aspects of this topic.
Kudos for a really well put post.
 

[tpe]

I agree, Thomas.  If Ennis had not felt a sexual spark, then Jack would have been just some guy who he really liked, a friend he was glad to find.  A good friend like that, who he could open up to, would have been treasure enough, for a boy like Ennis, but it obviously was much more than that.  And Jack certainly had a lot to do with that, beginning with the posturing the first time they met, with the more vivacious personality he had, to draw Ennis out.  Just think if the other guy on Brokeback that summer had been a guy just like Ennis.  They'd have gotten nowhere most likely; even if there was a spark, it probably would have been seriously tamped down.  Except, of course, the getting-drunk thing does tend to make such things happen, whether they would have in their sober state or not.

kathy

Thanks kathy.  Sexual attraction is a powerful thing.  In the case of Ennis, I am sure it was there from the start, even though it was all "under the hood", so to speak.

[tpe]

Sometimes I feel Ennis felt he had to over-compensate his masculinity ( "I aint queer") on an unconcious level, because he knew deep inside, he was attracted to Jack, but if he was completly straight, no matter how right the conditions were to dally in sexual acts with another man, could he have let things go as far as they did with Jack? He had a male "ego" without being egotistical with Jack. Even felt homophobic toward gay men. Now here he was , faced with those very feelings himself toward Jack.

Could he have been resisting  the undeniable truth within himself as well as Jack in  that little struggle  in FNIT? He knew something "queer" was gonna happen at that point, just did'nt know what ,yet when he realized Jack meant business, he eventually  gave in to the advances, whereas, if he was a typical completly straight  man of his times, and not "open" to any of this ,he would have laid Jack out and left the tent immediatley in disgust. Maybe even left the mountain, but something deeper was happening to him cuz  This is not what happened.

 Perhaps  Ennis's expectations were not so out of the blue concerning sex with Jack. Maybe he longed for Jack to take the initiative, something he could never do. What I got from the scene is Jack breaking down the last vestiges of doubt in Ennis that he may have had about his sexual attraction to him. Ennis had  to step over his own line in the sand to get to Jack. I suppose Jack felt he had Ennis *figured out* or defined somewhat  if only, to a limited extent.. His "ready or not, your doin this" attitude took courage, but I think Ennis was pretty much involved with Jack  already and wanted to express it in some way.
Jack simply gave him that opportunity and  in doing so ,a definition for what he was feeling.  Did this make him completly gay?  still don't know but I feel he was'nt completly straight either. Complex ? No doubt. My take.

I do agree that there was a big part of Ennis that resisted his own attraction to Jack.  I also seemed to feel that Ennis was just waiting for Jack to make the first move -- his taking the initiative in the FNIT seems to suggest that he just needed a little push. 

I go also agree that perhaps Jack had thought he had figured Ennis out by the time of FNIT.  But I somehow sense that even Jack was surprised at the very strong reaction he got from Ennis.  Ennis at that point exhibited all the classic signs of repressed desire, no?

[tpe]

Historically and culturally,  the concepts of "gay" and "straight",  even "bi-sexual" are quite recent innovations and largely restricted to the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim world.   Other societies recognise, or at least assume,  that every human being has the potential to enjoy sex with someone of the same sex.   And even in this society,  it is far more common for men to dally with one another (even when their primary drive is towards women) in the right circumstances than the Establishment cares to admit.   The plot of BBM is genuine;  I know this both from numerous personal experiences and through anecdotal evidence.   Classifying people according to their sexual preference is too easy and has little to do with reality.  For Ennis,  there is a mythical "queer" who bears a set of stereotypical traits and who fundamentally responds sexually to other men,  but not to women.   Ennis knows himself to be attracted to women and knows himself to be free of the stereotypical characteristics which identify a "queer".   So his remark "I ain't queer" must be stated in order to absolve himself of any such identity;  "This is a one-shot thing" suggests he intends to play around in the absence of any females (like masturbating when there's no sexual outlet available),  but not make a habit of it thereafter.  I've had numerous sexual experiences over the years with self-proclaimed "straight" men who were happy to roll in the hay with another fellow,  so long as it was made clear that no-one else must know and that no negative label be applied to their identity.   I know of so very, very many examples of this that I believe Annie Proulx revealed a deep truth about human practice in that short,  simple story.  Ennis is only human.

I agree up to a point.  Historically, although sexual broundaries have been more fluid at various epochs, one always confronted distinctions and classifications -- there has never really been a time when such things have been free of qualifications.

The Romans certainly distinguished between that pathic and the active roles, and they made VERY strong social distinctions as to the societal implications surrounding each one.   And the fragments from The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter as well as the famous Satire 2 of Juvenal make plain the wealth of distinctions that the Romans made in matters pertaining to homosexuality.

The Chinese have always strongly classified gayness as a distinct sexual preference, because the Confucians had always considered the homosexual act as a waste of the vital sexual energy in the form of semen (although the Taoists never really shared this, believeing that it was staying power and the act of orgasm that mattered the most.)

It is a common claim that such distinctions are basically Judeo-Christian.   This is not at all accurate, as the Japanese, as early as the 10th century, already had such distinctions.   I think this claim is confused with the fact that homosexuality was connected to the concept of sin and uncleanliness in Judeo-Christian thought.  But it is very clear that Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, accepted a certain segment of the population as distinctly gay, as is obvious in this passage from his Letter to the Romans:

"For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

What scholars have always claimed was that sexuality was indeed much more fluid in certain cultures and in certain periods of history -- but very few of them would go so far as to claim that distinctions approximating gayness, straightness, and bisexuality never existed.  Such distinctions have always existed, even though the 19th and 20th century terms we use today were called different things in earlier times.

[aintfoolin]

Historically and culturally,  the concepts of "gay" and "straight",  even "bi-sexual" are quite recent innovations and largely restricted to the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim world.   Other societies recognise, or at least assume,  that every human being has the potential to enjoy sex with someone of the same sex.   And even in this society,  it is far more common for men to dally with one another (even when their primary drive is towards women) in the right circumstances than the Establishment cares to admit.   The plot of BBM is genuine;  I know this both from numerous personal experiences and through anecdotal evidence.   Classifying people according to their sexual preference is too easy and has little to do with reality.  For Ennis,  there is a mythical "queer" who bears a set of stereotypical traits and who fundamentally responds sexually to other men,  but not to women.   Ennis knows himself to be attracted to women and knows himself to be free of the stereotypical characteristics which identify a "queer".   So his remark "I ain't queer" must be stated in order to absolve himself of any such identity;  "This is a one-shot thing" suggests he intends to play around in the absence of any females (like masturbating when there's no sexual outlet available),  but not make a habit of it thereafter.  I've had numerous sexual experiences over the years with self-proclaimed "straight" men who were happy to roll in the hay with another fellow,  so long as it was made clear that no-one else must know and that no negative label be applied to their identity.   I know of so very, very many examples of this that I believe Annie Proulx revealed a deep truth about human practice in that short,  simple story.  Ennis is only human.

 I agree , Ennis was only being human. I feel he can only be defined as that , but feel homosexuality is nothing new. The way it is defined or accepted  historically in different cultures is a testament to the many facets of human sexuality, wether it's straight, gay or bi. It is true that the concepts or definition of them may evolve and change through the centuries  but that does not lessen the fact that Gays have always been here and that human beings  will do whatever it takes to conform to  their sexual preferences, no matter how it's percieved by it's society.

Indeed, Ennis falls some where within the many branches of human sexuality that I spoke of earlier on the thread. Some choose to act upon  or "experiment" with other forms of sexual behavior , while firmly labeling themselves gay or straight. This includes the "self-proclaimed " "straight "men  you speak of. Men such as Jack who pre-dominitly seek out men for gratification , but can even he,  be labled  totally homosexual and still have sexual relations with Lureen? Lableing  or catergorizing,is  only for definitive purposes  in someone's individual mind.  Does'nt necessarily serve as a good measure of someone's true orientation. As opporunity presents ifself, some people will take it.Gay , bi,or straight.

The fact that Ennis fell in love with Jack to me is the true measure of one's preferences. It went so much more deeper than just sex for Ennis. It was a total soul search for  identity , sexual being  only a part . ( a big part, yes but it was only a part of what Ennis found in Jack).  What ever fulfilled this desperate need in him , complicated as he may be to read, it was clear that Jack Twist was at the bottom of  it for Ennis.  An apex point or dividing line btween Ennis's past way of thinking about homosexuality, and all that that entails and a new awakening to his  future feelings of it thru Jack. He coulda kept Alma or even Cassie for sure, he chose Jack.

 He fought it yes, but, I think it was Jack, and only Jack who allowed Ennis to be who he really was completly. The only person he could personally take inward comfortably.  He just happens to be another man.A true soulmate. This, I feel made the difference in the way Ennis may have wanted to see himself for society's sake ,and what he needed to feel for his own.  The confrontation scene shows the depth of his need for Jack and the fear he had of loosing him.
 Was Ennis Gay? Still don't know, but these are  only MO.

[lancecowboy]

Historically and culturally,  the concepts of "gay" and "straight",  even "bi-sexual" are quite recent innovations and largely restricted to the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim world.   Other societies recognise, or at least assume,  that every human being has the potential to enjoy sex with someone of the same sex.   And even in this society,  it is far more common for men to dally with one another (even when their primary drive is towards women) in the right circumstances than the Establishment cares to admit.   The plot of BBM is genuine;  I know this both from numerous personal experiences and through anecdotal evidence.   Classifying people according to their sexual preference is too easy and has little to do with reality.  For Ennis,  there is a mythical "queer" who bears a set of stereotypical traits and who fundamentally responds sexually to other men,  but not to women.   Ennis knows himself to be attracted to women and knows himself to be free of the stereotypical characteristics which identify a "queer".   So his remark "I ain't queer" must be stated in order to absolve himself of any such identity;  "This is a one-shot thing" suggests he intends to play around in the absence of any females (like masturbating when there's no sexual outlet available),  but not make a habit of it thereafter.  I've had numerous sexual experiences over the years with self-proclaimed "straight" men who were happy to roll in the hay with another fellow,  so long as it was made clear that no-one else must know and that no negative label be applied to their identity.   I know of so very, very many examples of this that I believe Annie Proulx revealed a deep truth about human practice in that short,  simple story.  Ennis is only human.

 (    Lachlan, I have refrained posting in this topic because I fail to see the relevance of putting a label on Ennis, or Jack for that matter, to the love they experienced on Brokeback Mountain. Annie Proulx herself said in that interview that she views Brokeback Mountain as a kind of wormhole in space where the two cowboys entered as straight men or at least men of indeterminate sexual orientation, and left as lovers. The important issue here is not what labels to apply to them, before or after, and it doesn't really matter if they fell in love at first sight, or during the bear scene, the fire scene, whatever. The important issue here, in my humble opinion, is that any human being is capable of falling in love in the right circumstances with another human being, regardless of their sex, color, creed, etc.

Love is a force of nature that disregards any human labels.

Romeo and Juliet fell victims to labels of their family name.

Ennis and Jack fell victims to labels of their sex or orientation.

No one should be judged by a label because labels are inherently approximation of the real person, who has more dimensions than any single label can describe.

True, we all belong to some "pick your label here" community. It does not mean that "pick your label here" describes us in any precise way. To use a label as the description for a person is to miss out on all the rest of that person which does NOT fall under that label. Ennis is not just gay. Not in the same sense that the fab four are gay. To say that Ennis is gay, and there fore..."pick your corollary here" is missing the point of Brokeback Mountain's Greatness in telling a classic love story between two soul mates, of any sex.

Just my rant and rave...in my HUMBLE but passionate opinions of the best movie ever.

[aintfoolin]

I totally agree with you, L Cowboy, Indeed I feel that one can search forever and fail to come up with a lable or category to fit Ennis or Jack. Only that they are human.

Yet ,I find the topic intriguing. pre- Jack Ennis  is only a product of homophobic teachings, and a fear of going against what society deems "normal" sexual behavior for a man..  Ennis paid a  high price trying to constantly conform to rules , set down by some one else's (mainly society's) idea of what "normal" is.  Only a fear of the unknown and surely  compounded by the experience of Earl and Rich.

It's also a study in human sexuality with Ennis going from point A , homophobic, to point B, in love with another man ,Jack. so he questions his sexuality, , had he had a different upbring, maybe he would'nt have made such a mountain out of a molehill.

  Wether ya  call it a force of nature, an acceptance of one's self  and other's  god-givin right to  love as one  believes, or  an unresolved  un-natural phenomenon  , plagued by homophobic reasoning , strict religious hang-ups , culture, shame and fear, etc.... we can only speculate.

 Imo it is only post-Jack did we see  one of the true lesson of  the film." to thine own self , be true" Go figure, again it's complex, but a  very , very interesting discussion/debate. MO .Thanx

[tpe]

As I have said very early in this thread, there is nothing wrong with a label -- it is what people make of it that makes all the difference.  "Gayness" as a label was always meant to be taken as a positive, acceptable term for sexual identity (as opposed to the derogatory terms of "queer" and "fag", or "pansy boy" as some of the ancient Romans would have it), and it still surprises me of how many people have developed a dislike for it.  Historically, the abbhorence is rooted in the reactions of certain homophobic segments of society in the 60s and 70s, who resented the sexual revolution, particularly when it applied to homosexuality.  It was THIS group that attached the ideas of effeminateness, enervation, and promiscuity to the positive term of "gayness".  I find it unfortunate that their efforts seem to have been partially successful.

We can disagree in this, but the dialogue is fascinating.  Keep up the exchange.

[Tony]

   These last 3 posts have been very interesting, and enough to get me willing to get into it, although,  this time from a different perspective.
Lance's post, based on that interview with Annie, is closest to my own beliefs-they entered the wormhole straight, left, as lovers, with their
sexuality difficult to label.  But I notice that Aintfoolin, with all her intuition about Ennis, leaves the matter---unsetttled, and that is courageous
when that character is one about whom she has very strong opinions and insights.
   So, let me take this up from a different direction.  And that is the fundamental strangeness that the question is asked at all.  Let alone,
continuing as one of the liveliest topics on this and other forums.  How could that be?  Think about it---doesn't make sense, that the question
would even come up.  That it does, has to mean something, and will try a little, there.
  Ugh.  Literary theories.  Double-ugh.  Yet one says that, in great works of art, the characters take over from the author's original glimpse
and develop--themselves.  Perhaps this was part of Annie's saying a hand from heaven seemed to be guiding her pen.  Ennis wanted to stay
generically straight, and so--he did, with no interest in any other males but Jack.  He defined himself, and that left Annie unable to come up
with any Randall's for Ennis.  Wouldn't fit her original glimpse, or sighting of him.
  Next, there still did remain a vagueness, a lack of information, that allows 2 opposite theories to emerge.  That's not a problem-that's GREAT!!!!
Wheeee!!!  It means we can derive a theory that explores homophobia so pervasive, it crippled a "gay" Ennis, and explore that, and it means
we can also derive a theory that loneliness and love can be so great that a male can find one and only one lover, and that can transcend
sexual orientation and leave the basics unaltered.  And that second view is equally rich with giving us more freedom, more tolerance.
  As I said, like Lance, I find Annie's interview definitive, and like him, I can move past it to the great love itself.  But whatever anyone thinks,
on this subject,  the fact that the question is even asked- was Ennis gay?--should tell us all, that the issue isn't settled, and is part of the
creative tension necessary to a work of art.  It does, and will continue to produce, a wealth of questions we need to ask.  It isn't a division
amongst us so much as a prodding to continue thinking, and learning.  All these posts above reflect that.
  The only problem I see, is if you get wedded to a particular answer based on what you WANT the answer to be, for a personal agenda, and
yes, I have seen that, and am trying to avoid that in myself.  Am happy to see that so many of the posts here, avoid that trap.  Lance
avoided it by accepting Annie's previously unknown definition and moving to the great love itself.  Aintfoolin did extremely well in keeping an
open mind, considering she knows Ennis like the back of her hand, and Thomas always is careful to respect everyone's point of view.
Great posts.  But my contribution is just this-we're still asking the question, and that, in itself, should tell us something.  It isn't settled, and
maybe isn't meant to be. We're supposed to keep digging.  It's the only way we will learn.

[tpe]

I will say for the record that I don't think Proulx implied as much as what is generally stated by a number of us here.  Here is the full section of that interview cited by lance:

MS—All sorts of friends have been asking me as a so-called literary expert and I said the difference between the story and the film is that when I read the story I found myself in tears, and when I saw the film I found that the film had made me cry, there was some kind of movie sadness sauce, that somehow got pulled over the material, whereas the story is written in somewhat of a stoic way of these men, it’s not insisting that you feel anything in particular, and as a result, my emotions just leaked out of me.. it came as a real startlement to me.

AP–I am very happy to hear that. Because it means that the thing works, the way that I hoped it would work, that for the reader what’s inside is necessary to complete the story and feel it out, and put a meaning in it. The place was very important to me, too as I was writing. The place is always important to me, everything I write—you know I write about rural situations but «Brokeback Mountain» itself, the idea of using the mountain as what they call inside in science-fiction “ a wormhole” where two characters go in and they come out differently. This was the thing that I wanted to play with from the beginning and I think it worked.

As you can see, the context of Proulx's statement is NOT at all specific to sexuality.  You can certainly interpret it more specifically -- that way a number of us here have specifically applied it to Ennis's and Jack's sexuality.  But Proulx certainly did not state it definitively this way.  The context of the statement is about the transforming power of the Mountain, about the power of place to change things in ways that we never thought possible.  I for one have always read this statement this way: that Brokeback allowed each of them to discover who they really were, so that they spent the next 20 years trying to capture the full meaning that was much easier for either of them to grasp in the confines and relative isolation of the mountain.

What I think is much more revealing about Proulx's vision on sexuality is given in another part of the interview:

MS—For me it’s just longing for love (AP—Oh yeah) that the story captures. There’s this huge sense that these men whatever lies they tell and refusals they make this love seems hardwired into them and is unmitigatable, unavoidable, unignorable…

AP—and inexpressible…

MS—and inexpressible.

AP—The other thing I wanted to mess with in this story to – the complex plurality of human sexuality, the unclear line that drifts from one pasture to the other, the back and forth, the interplay instead of this rigid constant “him-her”, “he-she”. It was interesting to me to put a lot of gray into this story and again account on readers to pull from their own lives and experience and thoughts what they knew about life and sex that contradicted the clear-cut pattern that’s given to us, the coloring book of life that we get when we’re little kids.

So as you can clearly see, Proulx herself is very far from being definitive on the nature of the characters' sexuality.  We are left to explore it through the lens of greater -- and more personal -- experience.

[Tony]

    Hi, tpe....I should start by saying any mistakes in Lance's posts were due to his relying on my account of the interview.  Which was, I think,
a little flawed, from no written transcript.  Have just listened to it again, and would say, immediately, I went too far in saying she says they
went into the wormhole straight, and came out mixed up.
  Also need to correct my saying she felt her pen was guided by heaven above, or to that effect.  She says she felt "a strange hand from above
and ( it) was guiding the pen..."
  The "drift from one pasture to another" in sexuality, I did not hear that exactly as you have posted above, and just have to rely on your having
a better ear, and a quicker hand to write down what was said before and after.
  It can be a difficult interview, for example when she say 50%, as to whether the actors got the characters right.  Because that is immediately
followed by her saying Jake created the Jack we see, and Heath had Ennis exactly as she had known him.  You have to then draw the
conclusion that by 50%, she meant the averaging out between Jake's creating his own version and Heath's going 100%.
  You are right, tpe, she was not definitive about their sexuality and so there is much there, open to interpretation, in this interview, just
as in the SS and film.  For example she refers to this raging "love that comes roaring out of nowhere".  You could mess around with that and
suggest, if it came out of nowhere, then it did not come out of sexual orientation. And drifting from one pasture to another, suggests delineations,
IF and only IF that stood alone, but your transcript shows, it doesn't.
  I do think it is extremely important that nowhere in this interview does she promote, establish, or defend any theory of 2 repressed gays.
The silence there is deafening.  She mentions 2 19 y.o.'s confused about their sexuality and that is as close as she gets.
  Again, you are correct, tpe....she did not define them as straight, going in. It's also true she seemed to want to leave much undefined, asking
the reader to fill in the blanks.  Which we've been busy beavers doing, each as best as we can.

[tpe]

This is I think fine for all of us, Tony, as I would never have expected Proulx to define her characters' sexuality in black and white -- especially Ennis's.  For me, this is actually a strength rather than a weakness.  It allows us to look into the question through our own views and experiences and reach our own conclusions.  Each one must have some grain of truth, given that the question reveals more about ourselves than on a definite answer.

[jackster]

Wonderful words here everyone. Tip o' the hat to Thomas for transcribing AP, a BIG help all around. Did you do that yourself or find it on-line?

I'm focused on her specific interjection of the word "inexpressible" into the description of this love that the boys discover. My little Mac dashboard dictionary defines inexpressible as "too strong to be conveyed or described in words". How perfect. Especially for my hero Ennis, he couldn't hardly put two words together anyway and what Jack ignited in him was truly beyond his ability to verbally express. How frequently we see him tongue-tied, unable to convey to Jack what he's feeling inside. His emotions with Jack boiling over wanting to erupt, but they can't find the way out. Given his described "uncommonly quick reflexes", my imagination wants to believe that he was sumthin' to be with in that bedroll. What he couldn't express verbally he made up for physically.
 
Sorry for bein' somewhat OT, but maybe "gay" is just too small a word to describe this, it just doesn't go far enough.

[manhattangirl]

Beautifully said jackster

[lancecowboy]

Golly gee hoppers! I didn't think I'd stir up a hornet's nest of responses with a simple rant.

For the record, I am not saying others should not have their own opinions about the sexuality of the characters. I think Brokeback Mountain is a great work of art, and therefore, as every great work of art, is open to personal interpretation that makes it more meaningful, and fulfilling for personal enjoyment. If making Ennis gay or whatever is important for a personal view of the movie, by all means, Ennis is gay.  My point was not an absolute statement about Ennis. My point was only my own view of the movie.

Thanks to tpe's transcription, I see even more clearly that Annie Proulx did not even mention sexuality in her interview. That in itself speaks volume about her intention to leave the issue in the grey area she spoke of elsewhere. As far as she is concerned, the sexuality is not an issue. It was the love between two lowly nobodys. Brokeback Mountain was the wormhole that transformed the two characters, not from straight to gay, or whatever, but from two lonely souls that no one would have noticed, that others often pissed on and spit at, into two soul mates who found fulfillment in each others arms. It was love's transforming power in its most glorious action. The sex was secondary.

Would we ask if Romeo and Juliet were straight? It's irrelevant to the story. It's like asking if they are clothed. It's part of the plot.

As far as being gay, and the label gay is concerned, I agree with tpe that some people still find the gay label disturbing. It is the reason why so many gay personal ads preface with "straight-acting". Personally, I find ALL labels disturbing because it means the person is automatically pigeonholing instead of listening, experiencing the real person, the real me. I don't have a problem with Ennis being gay, with calling myself gay. I just don't find it relevant, and definitely not important in comparison to the many more interesting issues. I was merely applauding Laclan's insights, which bear repeating here:

[...]
Classifying people according to their sexual preference is too easy and has little to do with reality. 
[...]
I believe Annie Proulx revealed a deep truth about human practice in that short,  simple story.  Ennis is only human.

I believe we often confuse our ability to put a label on things, to name concepts, with the reality of the thing. Without getting philosophical and metaphysical, I believe Annie Proulx's grey area is her way of saying the limitation of the power of language to express the inexpressible.

Wonderful words here everyone. Tip o' the hat to Thomas for transcribing AP, a BIG help all around. Did you do that yourself or find it on-line?

I'm focused on her specific interjection of the word "inexpressible" into the description of this love that the boys discover. My little Mac dashboard dictionary defines inexpressible as "too strong to be conveyed or described in words". How perfect. Especially for my hero Ennis, he couldn't hardly put two words together anyway and what Jack ignited in him was truly beyond his ability to verbally express. How frequently we see him tongue-tied, unable to convey to Jack what he's feeling inside. His emotions with Jack boiling over wanting to erupt, but they can't find the way out. Given his described "uncommonly quick reflexes", my imagination wants to believe that he was sumthin' to be with in that bedroll. What he couldn't express verbally he made up for physically.
 
Sorry for bein' somewhat OT, but maybe "gay" is just too small a word to describe this, it just doesn't go far enough.

I agree 100%. Thank you all for allowing me to go on a rant. I hope I did not offend any one, but if I did, please accept my apologies, and know that my opinion on the subject of labels in not intended to reflect my opinions of the people here, just my own personal cross that I have borne many years. I know everyone in the forum is tolerant and open-minded, as Tony has so said so well in his usual eloquence. I am sometimes just a bit too blunt in my limited expressiveness, like Ennis, sometimes my words punch themselves out into the open air.

With kind regards, and much love.

 

[aintfoolin]

Wonderful words here everyone. Tip o' the hat to Thomas for transcribing AP, a BIG help all around. Did you do that yourself or find it on-line?

I'm focused on her specific interjection of the word "inexpressible" into the description of this love that the boys discover. My little Mac dashboard dictionary defines inexpressible as "too strong to be conveyed or described in words". How perfect. Especially for my hero Ennis, he couldn't hardly put two words together anyway and what Jack ignited in him was truly beyond his ability to verbally express. How frequently we see him tongue-tied, unable to convey to Jack what he's feeling inside. His emotions with Jack boiling over wanting to erupt, but they can't find the way out. Given his described "uncommonly quick reflexes", my imagination wants to believe that he was sumthin' to be with in that bedroll. What he couldn't express verbally he made up for physically.
 
Sorry for bein' somewhat OT, but maybe "gay" is just too small a word to describe this, it just doesn't go far enough.

  This is true, Jackster ,Ennis was unable to put thoughts together verbally to express what he was feeling, (inexpressible)  but that would indeed be made up in the bedroll thus their " brilliant couplings" even into the later years. There in lies the fact that here's one negative that was turned into a positive.  I'm sure actions spoke louder than words .Jack was  one lucky man!

AP spoke of "places" she went to while penning the story.   I think I read somewhere that she stated that it was like Ledger had "read her mind" in his portrayal of Ennis. .  She says she wrote the characters in a "stoic way" .  Stoic people  often harbor many secrets. Pen was put to paper and a story was written and read. The film may have differed slightly from her writings, but her vision was realized none the less.

 Her story was  read by many people , and by applying their own life experiences , found themselves in  the same "place" she found herself. Then we have the added bounus of her work visualized on film.  It is this relationship with her characters to her readers that she is expressing imo. As a writer, she uses the reaction of her readers as a true measure of her work. Without this, the words are meaningless.

 Only when the readers' personal relationship is applied to her story is when we realize  that "place" where she took us is a  deep personal place within each and everyone of us. Our basic humanity. As a writer she has touched many people's lives.  Thru her , many were taken on a personal journey that did not end happily ever after.  Ennis and Jack's journey. A journey that deals with the very essence of what roles  human sexuality may have us to play right or wrong.  

 Who knows for sure if they were straight, gay, or bi when they went up to the mountain. The film did not elaborate, so this is open for speculation, but we do know that when they came down , a life-altering experience  had occured that caused them to question  their human sexuality , how this can happen, and how it *fit in* to the world around them.   My take on it.

[manhattangirl]

Maybe their sexuality is not important.   There's an organic sense to their love, it was natural,  but unexpected, like a flower growing in land deemed barren.  We don't know how it grew, but there it is.

Just a thought

[lancecowboy]

Maybe their sexuality is not important.   There's an organic sense to their love, it was natural,  but unexpected, like a flower growing in land deemed barren.  We don't know how it grew, but there it is.

Just a thought

I love the imagery, the metaphor, the poetry of their love like a flower growing in a land deemed barren, unlovable. I think it is what Annie Proulx was saying about the grey area, that sometimes, what is really important cannot be easily expressed, but come unexpected, inexpressible. Thank you for this.

[tpe]

Wonderful words here everyone. Tip o' the hat to Thomas for transcribing AP, a BIG help all around. Did you do that yourself or find it on-line?

I'm focused on her specific interjection of the word "inexpressible" into the description of this love that the boys discover. My little Mac dashboard dictionary defines inexpressible as "too strong to be conveyed or described in words". How perfect. Especially for my hero Ennis, he couldn't hardly put two words together anyway and what Jack ignited in him was truly beyond his ability to verbally express. How frequently we see him tongue-tied, unable to convey to Jack what he's feeling inside. His emotions with Jack boiling over wanting to erupt, but they can't find the way out. Given his described "uncommonly quick reflexes", my imagination wants to believe that he was sumthin' to be with in that bedroll. What he couldn't express verbally he made up for physically.
 
Sorry for bein' somewhat OT, but maybe "gay" is just too small a word to describe this, it just doesn't go far enough.

Thanks Jackster.  There are a number of transcriptions on this online.  I got mine from a French site, although I think there are a few of them out there.

As in everything, to define is certainly to limit.  This is not exactly a bad thing, since we all know that as in all choices or decisions made, one necessarily closes some doors. 

But I think the important thing here is that each one of us can make their own choices, and in no way does it change the validity and power of the story.  This is I think what Proulx essentially meant in her closing statements.

Therefore, I don't think "gay" is necessarily too small a word for it.  By choosing any word, one indeed imposes limitations; but it is only by this act that we can begin to explore meanings and connotations, without getting lost in a cloud of generalities.   This lies close to the heart of Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Language.    Think how barren and empty science would have become had they not tried to approximate the ineffable by limited concepts.  It is not that we should shy away from limitations -- we should use them as a starting point for further refinements, so as to advance understanding of what is thought to be "inexpressible".

I end with a paraphrase from one of the fathers of modern science.  It goes something like this:

Does it matter if there is such a thing as an "atom"?  The answer is NO.  The "atom" is a model, a paradigm, by which we can paint a picture of the natural world, understand it better, actually make predictions, and, by which, even harness nature's intrinsic power.  It does not matter if nature is infinitely richer than that model.  It is the first step towards understanding.

[tpe]

I believe we often confuse our ability to put a label on things, to name concepts, with the reality of the thing. Without getting philosophical and metaphysical, I believe Annie Proulx's grey area is her way of saying the limitation of the power of language to express the inexpressible.

lance, you certainly touch here some of the things I addressed in my last post. 

And we should thank you for bringing this up, as it can only enrich our exchange of ideas.  Agreement is not mandatory.

[tpe]

Maybe their sexuality is not important.   There's an organic sense to their love, it was natural,  but unexpected, like a flower growing in land deemed barren.  We don't know how it grew, but there it is.

Just a thought

manhattangirl, I see no contradiction with what you say here.  A rose is a rose by any other name.  But even just the word "rose" brings forth a whole world of meaning.

The question of sexuality then is but one way of trying to understand the meanings and connotations of that love.  It does not define it, in as much as it nonetheless actually enriches it.

[tpe]

Who knows for sure if they were straight, gay, or bi when they went up to the mountain. The film did not elaborate, so this is open for speculation, but we do know that when they came down , a life-altering experience  had occured that caused them to question  their human sexuality , how this can happen, and how it *fit in* to the world around them.   My take on it.

Indeed, we shall never know.  We are free to arrive at our own conclusions, or even choose not to. 

[lamusica]

Jackster, for something that is INEXPRESSIBLE, we all sure spend a lot of time trying to express it!  I think that is ironic.  I, too, think the love between these two guys was not able to be put into words -- or into deeds, for that matter.  This love just permeates the whole story from the get-go.  It is part of everything Jack does or Ennis does.  It colors them and their actions at all times and gives us lots to think and talk about.  But, the essential thing is that it is indefinable. Words only limit it, and it is bigger than that.  Try to describe a storm at sea, or a tornado when you are in its midst -- any work of nature that affects us.  We find that words just fall short.  And so it is with this wonderful work of nature between these two men.  THEY didn't discuss it.  They LIVED it. All WE can do is WITNESS it.  And I dare to say we are all stronger for being part of this story.

[lancecowboy]

lance, you certainly touch here some of the things I addressed in my last post. 

And we should thank you for bringing this up, as it can only enrich our exchange of ideas.  Agreement is not mandatory.

Agreed, that agreement is not mandatory or even necessary. Free discussion is the most enriching source of new understanding.

As you mentioned else where in response to others, a label is a necessary step towards limitations to begin to understand something. I agree with that, and also your statement that a rose is a rose, which allows the rose to be understood. The quotation on the atom is also poignant. These are all avenues of pursuit towards a greater understanding of reality. My only disagreement here is the mistaking of the label with the reality.

By your own assertions, a label is only useful in its ability to limit and set boundaries to our understanding of the world at large. If everything is called a rose, then no rose would smell so sweet. The more precise the label, the more useful it is. At the same time, the more precise the label, the smaller its applicable power in the idea space. Its own limitations make it inappropriate for those part of the universe outside of its supposed boundaries. In other words, the more useful a label, the smaller its applicability, and the larger the margin or tolerance when applied to approximations of ideas outside of its boundaries.

Gay is a label that is, as you pointed out, supposedly to replace the clinical homosexual. And that word was, if I recall from someone else, coined a century or two ago, to displace the less kind pederast. And of course, there are other nastier labels which I won't get into.

Is Ennis gay?

First of all, if the definition of gay is someone who is attracted to people of the same gender, then the question is to define this attraction. Ennis is attracted ONLY to Jack, not any other man. Is this considered gay? If so, then many men would be also considered gay. If not, then many ordinarily labelled "straight" can continue being straight. My point was the inexpressible, to use that word, quality of attraction (and this is different from sex) that Ennis had for Jack. It was love born of their time together on Brokeback Mountain. It would never be, if they did not have a summer of friendship, companionship, mutual respect before FNIT. For Ennis, he did not want anything else, he did not need anything else. For Ennis, Jack was friendship, companionship, respect all personified into one single human being who was fun to be with, not unlike Cassie.

Secondly, if the definition of gay is someone who is NOT attracted to people of the opposite gender, then the question is whether Ennis was EVER in love or attracted to Alma, or Cassie. How much of the absence of this attraction is required for Ennis to be gay? Can Ennis once felt attracted, or sometimes attracted and still be considered gay? My point was again the inexpressive quality of sexual attraction, which comes and goes. Can a person be gay, and not gay, and then gay again?

Finally, I was merely pointing out the limitations of "forcing" a label on something when it clearly, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, does not warrant a label. Ennis was Jack's love. Jack was Ennis' love. The two were lovers. Being gay has nothing to do with it, again, in my own personal humble opinion. If the two were of the opposite sex, and the reason for their un-fulfilled love was something equally unjust, for example, from different races, or more modern, from different planets, would the story be any different? Better yet, if Jack was a transvestite, or was transgender, would the story be any different? I say, no, because it is not about their sex, it is only about their love.

[aintfoolin]

Agreed, that agreement is not mandatory or even necessary. Free discussion is the most enriching source of new understanding.

As you mentioned else where in response to others, a label is a necessary step towards limitations to begin to understand something. I agree with that, and also your statement that a rose is a rose, which allows the rose to be understood. The quotation on the atom is also poignant. These are all avenues of pursuit towards a greater understanding of reality. My only disagreement here is the mistaking of the label with the reality.

By your own assertions, a label is only useful in its ability to limit and set boundaries to our understanding of the world at large. If everything is called a rose, then no rose would smell so sweet. The more precise the label, the more useful it is. At the same time, the more precise the label, the smaller its applicable power in the idea space. Its own limitations make it inappropriate for those part of the universe outside of its supposed boundaries. In other words, the more useful a label, the smaller its applicability, and the larger the margin or tolerance when applied to approximations of ideas outside of its boundaries.

Gay is a label that is, as you pointed out, supposedly to replace the clinical homosexual. And that word was, if I recall from someone else, coined a century or two ago, to displace the less kind pederast. And of course, there are other nastier labels which I won't get into.

Is Ennis gay?

First of all, if the definition of gay is someone who is attracted to people of the same gender, then the question is to define this attraction. Ennis is attracted ONLY to Jack, not any other man. Is this considered gay? If so, then many men would be also considered gay. If not, then many ordinarily labelled "straight" can continue being straight. My point was the inexpressible, to use that word, quality of attraction (and this is different from sex) that Ennis had for Jack. It was love born of their time together on Brokeback Mountain. It would never be, if they did not have a summer of friendship, companionship, mutual respect before FNIT. For Ennis, he did not want anything else, he did not need anything else. For Ennis, Jack was friendship, companionship, respect all personified into one single human being who was fun to be with, not unlike Cassie.

Secondly, if the definition of gay is someone who is NOT attracted to people of the opposite gender, then the question is whether Ennis was EVER in love or attracted to Alma, or Cassie. How much of the absence of this attraction is required for Ennis to be gay? Can Ennis once felt attracted, or sometimes attracted and still be considered gay? My point was again the inexpressive quality of sexual attraction, which comes and goes. Can a person be gay, and not gay, and then gay again?

Finally, I was merely pointing out the limitations of "forcing" a label on something when it clearly, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, does not warrant a label. Ennis was Jack's love. Jack was Ennis' love. The two were lovers. Being gay has nothing to do with it, again, in my own personal humble opinion. If the two were of the opposite sex, and the reason for their un-fulfilled love was something equally unjust, for example, from different races, or more modern, from different planets, would the story be any different? Better yet, if Jack was a transvestite, or was transgender, would the story be any different? I say, no, because it is not about their sex, it is only about their love.

 It's a very difficult question. Both Ennis and Jack were able to have sexual relations with women, but did they love them like they did each other? Did they need them like they needed each other? . Did they feel completed by these women? Only in a sense of "going thru the motions" to appear normal for a closed-minded society's sake ,maybe but,  I think not.  Imo it seems to me they got with these women for reasons other than what really felt right to them ,evidenced by them  being dropped by the wayside one by one in favor of the loving bond Jack and Ennis shared for 20 years.

 I mean would  Ennis really want to fix his marriage to Alma if he could? rather than go thru a divorce?  Give up Jack? Though Jack never divorced Lureen, obviously, it was Ennis , another man ,he preferred. I never got the feeling that Ennis was deeply "in love" with Alma  in any case ,or Jack "deeply in love" with Lureen.

 In this society, lables are used to define a certain element in people, though this may not define a person completly, it, I feel is necessary to a certain extent. Again not to say that lables describe the make up of a human being as a whole but it is matters of a sexual nature that the film delves into.  There are those clear tendencies for who one chooses to love. If your a man in this society, are attracted to men only, sleep with men only, prefer the company of men  socially, or fall in love with men only, then the lable  "gay" or "homosexual" applies based on these facts, "Homosexual", being a more clinical term, but I won't pretend  to know where the term "gay" originates from, perhaps some one can fill me in, but , both terms are within the realm of one's sexuality. Brokeback Mountain just happens to deal with the sexuality between two men within that "gray area"  Yes, they were just two cowboys in love , but the subject matter is what it was , so to me  personally ,it is relevent discussion for all the millions of Ennises and Jacks  out there still struggling with this question.  If I'm wrong, please inform, I only seek to learn...Thanx.

[babytammy7]

Jackster, for something that is INEXPRESSIBLE, we all sure spend a lot of time trying to express it!  I think that is ironic.  I, too, think the love between these two guys was not able to be put into words -- or into deeds, for that matter.   This love just permeates the whole story from the get-go.  It is part of everything Jack does or Ennis does.  It colors them and their actions at all times and gives us lots to think and talk about.  But, the essential thing is that it is indefinable. Words only limit it, and it is bigger than that.  Try to describe a storm at sea, or a tornado when you are in its midst -- any work of nature that affects us.  We find that words just fall short.  And so it is with this wonderful work of nature between these two men.  THEY didn't discuss it.  They LIVED it. All WE can do is WITNESS it.  And I dare to say we are all stronger for being part of this story.

I agree with you Lamusica!!! Love your post!!!

[babytammy7]

Agreed, that agreement is not mandatory or even necessary. Free discussion is the most enriching source of new understanding.

As you mentioned else where in response to others, a label is a necessary step towards limitations to begin to understand something. I agree with that, and also your statement that a rose is a rose, which allows the rose to be understood. The quotation on the atom is also poignant. These are all avenues of pursuit towards a greater understanding of reality. My only disagreement here is the mistaking of the label with the reality.

By your own assertions, a label is only useful in its ability to limit and set boundaries to our understanding of the world at large. If everything is called a rose, then no rose would smell so sweet. The more precise the label, the more useful it is. At the same time, the more precise the label, the smaller its applicable power in the idea space. Its own limitations make it inappropriate for those part of the universe outside of its supposed boundaries. In other words, the more useful a label, the smaller its applicability, and the larger the margin or tolerance when applied to approximations of ideas outside of its boundaries.

Gay is a label that is, as you pointed out, supposedly to replace the clinical homosexual. And that word was, if I recall from someone else, coined a century or two ago, to displace the less kind pederast. And of course, there are other nastier labels which I won't get into.

Is Ennis gay?

First of all, if the definition of gay is someone who is attracted to people of the same gender, then the question is to define this attraction. Ennis is attracted ONLY to Jack, not any other man. Is this considered gay? If so, then many men would be also considered gay. If not, then many ordinarily labelled "straight" can continue being straight. My point was the inexpressible, to use that word, quality of attraction (and this is different from sex) that Ennis had for Jack. It was love born of their time together on Brokeback Mountain. It would never be, if they did not have a summer of friendship, companionship, mutual respect before FNIT. For Ennis, he did not want anything else, he did not need anything else. For Ennis, Jack was friendship, companionship, respect all personified into one single human being who was fun to be with, not unlike Cassie.

Secondly, if the definition of gay is someone who is NOT attracted to people of the opposite gender, then the question is whether Ennis was EVER in love or attracted to Alma, or Cassie. How much of the absence of this attraction is required for Ennis to be gay? Can Ennis once felt attracted, or sometimes attracted and still be considered gay? My point was again the inexpressive quality of sexual attraction, which comes and goes. Can a person be gay, and not gay, and then gay again?

Finally, I was merely pointing out the limitations of "forcing" a label on something when it clearly, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, does not warrant a label. Ennis was Jack's love. Jack was Ennis' love. The two were lovers. Being gay has nothing to do with it, again, in my own personal humble opinion. If the two were of the opposite sex, and the reason for their un-fulfilled love was something equally unjust, for example, from different races, or more modern, from different planets, would the story be any different? Better yet, if Jack was a transvestite, or was transgender, would the story be any different? I say, no, because it is not about their sex, it is only about their love.

OMG Andrew!!! I really love your post too!! I think in the same way you do!!! I hope to write what I think about this soon, if I have enough time!!! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!!! 

[tpe]

Agreed, that agreement is not mandatory or even necessary. Free discussion is the most enriching source of new understanding.

As you mentioned else where in response to others, a label is a necessary step towards limitations to begin to understand something. I agree with that, and also your statement that a rose is a rose, which allows the rose to be understood. The quotation on the atom is also poignant. These are all avenues of pursuit towards a greater understanding of reality. My only disagreement here is the mistaking of the label with the reality.

By your own assertions, a label is only useful in its ability to limit and set boundaries to our understanding of the world at large. If everything is called a rose, then no rose would smell so sweet. The more precise the label, the more useful it is. At the same time, the more precise the label, the smaller its applicable power in the idea space. Its own limitations make it inappropriate for those part of the universe outside of its supposed boundaries. In other words, the more useful a label, the smaller its applicability, and the larger the margin or tolerance when applied to approximations of ideas outside of its boundaries.

It is true that the label should not be taken to represent thw whole realiry.  But that is why we have words in a language, no?  Take for example the word "man" -- it specifically defines the male gender.  But when we say "Ennis is a man", do we necessarily limit our understanding of Ennis in terms of just the male genitalia?  Certainly not.  THis is what I mean by the whole world of meanings and connotations.  We see the term "man" through layers of history, art, aesthetics, attributes, and experience, and not just in terms of gender.

But I understand what you mean here.  Many people do tend to reduce terms rather simplistically at times.

Gay is a label that is, as you pointed out, supposedly to replace the clinical homosexual. And that word was, if I recall from someone else, coined a century or two ago, to displace the less kind pederast. And of course, there are other nastier labels which I won't get into.

Is Ennis gay?

First of all, if the definition of gay is someone who is attracted to people of the same gender, then the question is to define this attraction. Ennis is attracted ONLY to Jack, not any other man. Is this considered gay? If so, then many men would be also considered gay. If not, then many ordinarily labelled "straight" can continue being straight. My point was the inexpressible, to use that word, quality of attraction (and this is different from sex) that Ennis had for Jack. It was love born of their time together on Brokeback Mountain. It would never be, if they did not have a summer of friendship, companionship, mutual respect before FNIT. For Ennis, he did not want anything else, he did not need anything else. For Ennis, Jack was friendship, companionship, respect all personified into one single human being who was fun to be with, not unlike Cassie.

Again, here I object to the claim that Ennis was only attracted to Jack.  Taking into account Proulx's statements, I do think the answer is: we really don't know.  Just because he was not shown to play around with other men as Jack was does not mean that he was not attracted to them.  This, like so many other things in the story and the film, are left intentionally ambiguous.

Secondly, if the definition of gay is someone who is NOT attracted to people of the opposite gender, then the question is whether Ennis was EVER in love or attracted to Alma, or Cassie. How much of the absence of this attraction is required for Ennis to be gay? Can Ennis once felt attracted, or sometimes attracted and still be considered gay? My point was again the inexpressive quality of sexual attraction, which comes and goes. Can a person be gay, and not gay, and then gay again?

This really does not do justice to the complexities of the gay experience.  For example, I had an elderly friend who pretty much lived out his life marrying 2 women and having children.  It was only late in life that he confessed openly that he had lived a lie, and that he was exclusively attracted to men.  Just because he was capable of showing affection and love to women and to have sex with them didn't mean that he was not gay.  He pretended all his life, and he said that it was necessary, given the social pressures that were ranged against him.

I should add that even after he confessed this to his second wife, they remained married and agreed on certain ground rules -- and stayed  happily married up until his death a few years ago.

In this statement, I do not say that bisexuality is impossible.  I only give this example to show how far people will go to hide their true nature.

And lastly, remember that love and affection go beyond sexual preference.  My recently deceased friend Robert numbered 2 women as the people closest to him.  One was the executor of his will when he died -- he ignored all his surviving family members.  This is an example of love without the veneer of sexual desire between a gay man and a straight woman.  It is quite common.

Finally, I was merely pointing out the limitations of "forcing" a label on something when it clearly, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, does not warrant a label. Ennis was Jack's love. Jack was Ennis' love. The two were lovers. Being gay has nothing to do with it, again, in my own personal humble opinion. If the two were of the opposite sex, and the reason for their un-fulfilled love was something equally unjust, for example, from different races, or more modern, from different planets, would the story be any different? Better yet, if Jack was a transvestite, or was transgender, would the story be any different? I say, no, because it is not about their sex, it is only about their love.

We can agree to disagree.    For me, a label is never forced.  It is given to bring out certain ideas that one feels embody the individual.  That label is never meant to represent the individual in his/her entirety, as I have discussed above.

[tpe]

It's a very difficult question. Both Ennis and Jack were able to have sexual relations with women, but did they love them like they did each other? Did they need them like they needed each other? . Did they feel completed by these women? Only in a sense of "going thru the motions" to appear normal for a closed-minded society's sake ,maybe but,  I think not.  Imo it seems to me they got with these women for reasons other than what really felt right to them ,evidenced by them  being dropped by the wayside one by one in favor of the loving bond Jack and Ennis shared for 20 years.

 I mean would  Ennis really want to fix his marriage to Alma if he could? rather than go thru a divorce?  Give up Jack? Though Jack never divorced Lureen, obviously, it was Ennis , another man ,he preferred. I never got the feeling that Ennis was deeply "in love" with Alma  in any case ,or Jack "deeply in love" with Lureen.

 In this society, lables are used to define a certain element in people, though this may not define a person completly, it, I feel is necessary to a certain extent. Again not to say that lables describe the make up of a human being as a whole but it is matters of a sexual nature that the film delves into.  There are those clear tendencies for who one chooses to love. If your a man in this society, are attracted to men only, sleep with men only, prefer the company of men  socially, or fall in love with men only, then the lable  "gay" or "homosexual" applies based on these facts, "Homosexual", being a more clinical term, but I won't pretend  to know where the term "gay" originates from, perhaps some one can fill me in, but , both terms are within the realm of one's sexuality. Brokeback Mountain just happens to deal with the sexuality between two men within that "gray area"  Yes, they were just two cowboys in love , but the subject matter is what it was , so to me  personally ,it is relevent discussion for all the millions of Ennises and Jacks  out there still struggling with this question.  If I'm wrong, please inform, I only seek to learn...Thanx.

I agree.   I said similar things in my last post, without having read your post, aintfoolin.  I am gratified to know this. 

[Tony]

   On the subject of labels, as far as sexuality, a lot of us would want the question to remain open, but science is on the march and we've
probably only got a few decades, maybe less, before we are confronted with reasonably definitive answers.  Just like gene-code research is
getting near to predicting what illnesses we are prone to, and DNA tests can trace back our ancestry, there's been some work on sexuality,
which I mentioned in the first thread I started, after joining this forum.
  The first breakthrough, pupil dilation tests, alas, came from the Navy trying to screen out gays from submarine service, and they had trouble,
big-time, because most sailors (and civilian men) showed pupil dilation when seeing pictures of....nekked men.  Indicating....interest.
They botched it up  pretty bad, not taking into account male doggy-dog interest in anything "naughty", and also the extent and duration of
the pupil dilation.  But, never fear---if they spent money on the "Gay Bomb", and they did, there's still research in this area.
  Then came along a new theory on sexuality of straight men, with regard to their being able or prone to having same gender intercourse,
giving 5 categories (which were listed in that thread).  They did not cover women or gays, as that requires ever more research, but--they'll
get there.
  They have a lot to factor in.  For example, the human mind is looking more and more like a computer, in some ways, and, yeah, we have
a "delete" and a "recycle" bin, so that thoughts that would make a "gay" or "straight" person uncomfortable, would....vanish.  Also, like in
Chaos theory, there seems to be a tipping point, whereby there's no smooth transition, but a radical, sudden jump.  Maybe that would explain
those cases where somebody seems to equivocate, and then define themselves.  They've reached a tipping point and then, to reinforce that,
they delete previous feelings or thoughts.
  But, they'll get there.  They'll get past our supposings, our wants, and our smokescreens, and they will be able to have.....reasonably definitive
labels. The "continuum" theory will fall to much more defined pigeon-holes, many of them, but with fairly distinct walls rather than vagueness.
  Happily enough, it will be very difficult to apply new scientific tests to each individual, and there is no reason to do so, unless an individual
wants to know.  And also,.....we have time.  Time to adjust to the shocks about our general sexuality, time to promote more tolerance and
understanding.  Time to really adjust to the fact that we are...sexual.
  I did not revive that thread, partly because it provoked a big yawn, and partly because I related it to whether Ennis was gay.  Am just saying,
here, the discussion in this thread is productive, because its getting people to think, and we DO need to be ready for when they have finally
tweaked those pupil dilation tests and category types into something that is just shy of DNA tests.  We need to be ready for them.  We need
to be ahead of them, especially with regard to defining what's useful, and what's not.  We've got, and here am guessing, 10-20 years, to
put our own 2 cents worth in, and fend off arbitrary conclusions from whatever they come up with.  And to promote tolerance and always,
always factor in what they might not, our own humanity.