Topic: was ennis gay ?

[lamusica]

Such a great, ccerebral post, Tony!  That's why I maintain we have to do all we can possibly do NOW to take away the onus of being gay, bi, or anything else, for that matter.  We HAVE to open the closed minds, and make an individual's sexuality a part of him (her), just as eye color, or hair color, or DNA is a part of him -- WITHOUT ANY JUDGEMENT.  If the people who are members of this forum -- just these 4,000 -- made it a point to do all in their power to bring this type of acceptance about in the world, we could do it.  Everytime one hears some negative comment about someone being gay, queer, a homo --we have to react.  I don't mean we have to become violent, but we cannot just turn our head the other way and ignore such ignorance.  You are RIGHT!  It is not too late to change people's attitudes.  If that were not the case, we could all just quit living because there would be no hope in the world.  There is ALWAYS the hope for change.  Wonderful post, Tony!!! You the man!!!

[lancecowboy]

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.

Hi, aintfoolin, I would not dare to presume to teach anything. I am merely participating in this lively discussion with my own peculiar brand of opinions and from a different perspective from normal.

I agree with you that the word gay or homosexual applies to a "person in this society, are attracted to same gender only, sleep with same gender only, prefer the company of same gender socially, or fall in love with same gender only, then the lable  "gay" or "homosexual" applies based on these facts".

My problem with agreement is the application of this label to any individual person, based on "these facts". For example, consider specifically the case of Ennis. He does NOT sleep with men only, he does not prefer the company of men only, and he can be said to be attracted to Alma and Cassie to some degree. So the question is simple, how precise is this definition?

In my humble opinion, no one fits perfectly a label, just as no one is perfectly average. True Ennis loves a man. True, he may be even gay, in the sense that he was ready to forego sex with Alma, and with Cassie. But it can be equally true to say that Ennis was not so much homosexual but simply a lover of a man. As Jack said, Ennis is happy with a couple high altitude fu@#$ a couple times a year. That doesn't sound like the gay men we know.

By the same definition that you stated above, and I quoted in bold, with the gender neutral terms added by in in italic, a number of ordinarily considered straight men would be labelled gay, for example Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Batman and Robin, Robin Hood and his merry men. The list goes on. The problem with a simplistic label that society so love to have, like IQ, class, creed, color, poor, rich, etc, is that they are made for people in power to segregate people without power. It has nothing to do with the reality of the people involved. To say Ennis is gay, is as useful as saying he likes to dress country western, which by the way, is equally non-descriptive.

Just my two cents worth.

[lancecowboy]

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.

I agree that labels are useful for understanding. No doubt about it.

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

Agreed. It is more common than we like to admit, and it is a fine line between using a label for understanding, and using it as a stereotype, or worse, a caricature.

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.

I was referring only to the short story's motel confession by Ennis, which stated that he was not attracted to them. I agree that the movie, and subsequent Annie Proulx interviews tend to leave the issue ambiguous.

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.

Yes, I agree with that. But attraction and love are not necessarily the same. If being gay is based only on sexual attraction, of any amount, then many "straight" men would be considered gay on that measure. I think it is clear that by definition these labels are incapable of FULLY capturing the complexity of human love and sexuality. It is, I believe, what Annie Proulx was saying by inexpressible. By forcing a label on the indescribable, we distort the true beauty of Ennis.

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.

Agreed.
 

[aintfoolin]

 Thanx L. Cowboy, and I do understand what you are saying. Ennis nor Jack fell into the set of facts I listed, but don't you feel that labling does not necessarily have  to have negative connotations? Certainly there is a large segment of society that isists on perpetuating a negative stereotpye of the "gay" lable,  But I feel a large part of the appeal of  Brokeback Mountain seemed to be it's non-stereotypical portrayal of homosexuality . Many Ennis's and Jacks', their mothers,fathers, brothers, sisters, or even wives and husbands,...etc.. were drawn to this film, not necessarily out of fear of being labled, but saw a small piece of their own personal selves wrapped up in Jack or Ennis's exploration into their "orientation". A very human film. If every parent taught their child to  ignore the "lables" and get to know the real person, the world would be a much better place in which to live.  We all have to live in this screwed up world , but tolerence is the only key to lessen the blows, no matter what lable we wear.

 Your "gift" of expression /communication is under-estimated by you my friend, Wether you presume  to dare or not I learn from your perpectives and opinions, I do. Agreed ,we may no agree on everything ,echoing Tpe's  sentiment ,but that's  ok I luv ya anyway.  Here's to you  cowboy.

[manhattangirl]

Labels were brought to us in this story "I'm not queer", there it is.  Ennis major problem was dealing with the label, and his feelings.   No matter how we feel about labels, it was the center of Jack and Ennis's story.  The love they had for each other, but what do you call it?   Jack and Ennis themselves had to deal with labels. 

[tpe]

Labels were brought to us in this story "I'm not queer", there it is.  Ennis major problem was dealing with the label, and his feelings.   No matter how we feel about labels, it was the center of Jack and Ennis's story.  The love they had for each other, but what do you call it?   

I do think it really highlighted a common fear that many gay men today still wrestle with -- coming to terms with their own sexual identity in the light of what society has conditioned them to think of as acceptable or unacceptable.  I suspect that in that scene, Ennis himself would have denied that it was love, even though he probably was in love with Jack at that point.

So the dilemna here goes even beyond "gay" as a label.  Ennis never said "I LOVE you" to Jack in any of the scenes.  He was afraid of the word "love" itself. 

After all. "love" itself is a label.  I can see some people denying that Ennis was ever truly in love with Jack.  I know that most of us will say they were in love, but do understand that the meanings and connotations of such a love can only be possible between a man and a woman for so many millions of people in the world today.

For them, our use of the word "love" to label what went on between Ennis and Jack is absolutely perverse. 

You see that my argument here echoes what I have tried to say about the label "gay". 



 

[babytammy7]

For them, our use of the word "love" to label what went on between Ennis and Jack is absolutely perverse. 
 

Oh no Thomas..... :\'(  :\'(  :\'( That's is horrible...but I know it's true: there are people thinking that Ennis and Jack love was something wrong, awful and merely sexual.....  :\'(

Thank you so much for your posts Thomas, MG, AF, Andrew, Tony and LM!!! You all amaze me!!! I love everything you write. Sometimes Thomas or AF say what I was thinking and sometimes are Andrew, Tony, MG or LM. You're really clever, you make think all time. You all draw Ennis more clearly for me and now I understand him better. 

[Tony]

     Am hoping this isn't too off-beat of a post.  Anyway, the topic is, "was ennis gay?" and it is one of the most popular and enduring topics
on this, and other forums.  You get your different sides of the issue showing up, and then, every single time, the discussion ends up on the issue
of....labels.  It's as if we're going around in circles.  It might help, if only a little, if we were careful to use "definitions", instead of "labels".
They're pretty closely related, true, but trying for definitions, while difficult, does avoid the toxicity and uproar over labels.
   I do thank Lamusica for spotting what I had said about science moving towards fairly sturdy definitions derived from physiological responses,
and also thank tpe, if I understand him correctly, for pointing to the further issue-the labels may not be the problem so much as the responses
to those labels.  Forgive me, Thomas, if I got that wrong.
  Anyway-just 2 thoughts.  First, I am always amazed at the criminals, and creeps, that (and I know this is crazy) seem to expect their behavior
to be part of the human spectrum of activity--after all, they're not...GAY.  It's as if all these cops and robbers types are all playing a game,
with almost equal respect, so long as they're not...gay.  Where do I get this lunacy from?  Watching the reactions between police and the crooks.
It's like-an eco-system of mutual respect.  Introduce "gay" and they are---outta there.  I have noticed, criminals get treated with grudging
respect---but gays....get bashed or create stupefaction.  I see the police going after gangs, but its like....a game between 2 groups, and then
you all can see police near gay bars----they are extremely uncomfortable.  Makes me wonder if a significant amount of abuse and crime is a
continuation of kid's games, taken to a new level, acceptable, if you're not gay.  Crime & law-enforcement-both childhood games.  That's a wild
thought, or impression, but it has crossed my mind. You can, for some types, be anything.....so long as you're inside the circle....not gay.
  And the second thought- if this issue is still with us....was ennis gay?...doesn't that at least establish a fundamental fact.....that the issue
isn't settled?  I love and appreciate all these posts, but had to point out the obvious--it's a worthy subject, but that it even comes up as
a question, should be understood as very significant.

[tpe]

Tony, you didn't misunderstand.

I would have to agree with you in that the closest an answer we could get is that it isn't settled, and will most likely not be settled.

But as I said, it's not the existence of a final answer that drives us here.  It's the journey through questions and opinions shared that matter te most and will prove most valuable in the long run.

[Tony]

  Amen.

[lancecowboy]

Thanx L. Cowboy, and I do understand what you are saying. Ennis nor Jack fell into the set of facts I listed, but don't you feel that labling does not necessarily have  to have negative connotations? Certainly there is a large segment of society that isists on perpetuating a negative stereotpye of the "gay" lable,  But I feel a large part of the appeal of  Brokeback Mountain seemed to be it's non-stereotypical portrayal of homosexuality . Many Ennis's and Jacks', their mothers,fathers, brothers, sisters, or even wives and husbands,...etc.. were drawn to this film, not necessarily out of fear of being labled, but saw a small piece of their own personal selves wrapped up in Jack or Ennis's exploration into their "orientation". A very human film. If every parent taught their child to  ignore the "lables" and get to know the real person, the world would be a much better place in which to live.  We all have to live in this screwed up world , but tolerence is the only key to lessen the blows, no matter what lable we wear.

 Your "gift" of expression /communication is under-estimated by you my friend, Wether you presume  to dare or not I learn from your perpectives and opinions, I do. Agreed ,we may no agree on everything ,echoing Tpe's  sentiment ,but that's  ok I luv ya anyway.  Here's to you  cowboy.

aintfoolin, I have no doubt of our mutual respect and the love that bound us. I am often passionate about my opinions, and as I said before, sometimes the words punch their way out in frustration, as Ennis' often do. This is especially true in this topic when so many ideas are very difficult and often inexpressible.

I agree with you 100% where I have bolded and colored red.

The reason I fight against the use of labels on individuals is precisely the limitations each label has in describing a person. The statement or assertion that 'Ennis is gay' has a truth value of perhaps 20%. 'Ennis is straight' is equally misleading, and has a truth value that is also very low. Even the ambiguous 'Ennis is bisexual' is not satisfactory, either. There is no single label that satisfactorily describe Ennis' love for Jack. Without this most important aspect of Ennis, no label is adequate.

Similarly, historians often refer to Alexander as bisexual because of his love for Hephaestion. But was he really, or was he gay?

The gray area that Annie Proulx speaks of is, I believe, this range of human sexuality that goes from those who are 100% straight to those who are 100% gay, and then the many who are in between, not necessarily loving men and women at the same time, but perhaps different individuals depending on circumstances. I guess my point has been that human sexuality is much more complex than simply who is sleeping with whom.

I agree that putting away labels will help make the world a better place. I think this means we need to put away the power of labels by making them meaningless, as far as application to an individual is concerned. It is fine to speak of the gay community, the gay games, etc. But a single individual in the community, paradoxically, is more complex than the community, and the label gay becomes too small to describe the person properly. To use it indiscriminately is to give it more power than it should have, IMHO.

If Ennis was asked the question, are you gay? We should respect whatever answer he gives because that is who he is to his own mind. And if his behavior proves otherwise, we can have issue with convincing him of his erroneous view of himself. But, as far as the short story, and the movie is concerned, Ennis is more asexual than gay or bisexual or any other sexual label. To me, Ennis is about love and friendship. Sex was a result of the love and friendship, not the other way around.

[lancecowboy]

Labels were brought to us in this story "I'm not queer", there it is.  Ennis major problem was dealing with the label, and his feelings.   No matter how we feel about labels, it was the center of Jack and Ennis's story.  The love they had for each other, but what do you call it?   Jack and Ennis themselves had to deal with labels. 

And look at what the labels got them...

They would have been far happier if the both ignored the labels and lived the love they shared.

The problem with Ennis' "I ain't queer' was that he was misled by those who used the label to believe that there was anything wrong with a man loving a man. If labels got them into trouble, why would we want to perpetuate them? They (labels applied to individuals) should be thrown into the dustbin of history along with all the other fallacies like the earth is flat, etc.

[Asali]

The gray area that Annie Proulx speaks of is, I believe, this range of human sexuality that goes from those who are 100% straight to those who are 100% gay, and then the many who are in between, not necessarily loving men and women at the same time, but perhaps different individuals depending on circumstances. I guess my point has been that human sexuality is much more complex than simply who is sleeping with whom.

If Ennis was asked the question, are you gay? We should respect whatever answer he gives because that is who he is to his own mind. And if his behavior proves otherwise, we can have issue with convincing him of his erroneous view of himself. But, as far as the short story, and the movie is concerned, Ennis is more asexual than gay or bisexual or any other sexual label. To me, Ennis is about love and friendship. Sex was a result of the love and friendship, not the other way around.

I have to agree with your whole post but have quoted and bolded some parts of it that I feel could help in understanding ennis's sexuality.

[lancecowboy]

I do think it really highlighted a common fear that many gay men today still wrestle with -- coming to terms with their own sexual identity in the light of what society has conditioned them to think of as acceptable or unacceptable.  I suspect that in that scene, Ennis himself would have denied that it was love, even though he probably was in love with Jack at that point.

So the dilemna here goes even beyond "gay" as a label.  Ennis never said "I LOVE you" to Jack in any of the scenes.  He was afraid of the word "love" itself. 

After all. "love" itself is a label.  I can see some people denying that Ennis was ever truly in love with Jack.  I know that most of us will say they were in love, but do understand that the meanings and connotations of such a love can only be possible between a man and a woman for so many millions of people in the world today.

For them, our use of the word "love" to label what went on between Ennis and Jack is absolutely perverse. 

You see that my argument here echoes what I have tried to say about the label "gay". 
 

tpe, I agree with the bolded and colored red section. It is the central theme of the movie, that love was denied, both as a result of social pressure, and Ennis' own internalized social pressure.

I also agree that even today there are millions of people who would consider love between same sexes as perverse. But isn't that a different label? As I mentioned in response to aintfoolin, it is not the label itself that I object to. It is the application of the label to an individual, when it is highly approximate. It is like calling a rose a flower, and expect that label to carry significant meaning or power of description. It is too generic, and too limited to convey the beauty and specialness of a rose, especially a particularly lovely rose at the edge of bloom. It is the same to same that a person is gay, and expect that label to fully describe the person. Ennis is gay, as far as his love for Jack is concerned, but it is not the same as the gay love, as between Jack and the Mexican hustlers, or even the gay love between Jack and Randall, or the many others, when he rode more than bulls during the four years after Brokeback Mountain. The statement Jack is gay, perhaps, has a higher truth value, than Ennis is gay. When is it acceptable to apply the label? I am certain everyone will have their own opinion on this, and as already mentioned, it is not required or necessary to achieve agreement. Just my two cents worth when it comes to labels, I am against them sticking to people, 100%. People who wants to apply the label to themselves, that's a different story...

[lancecowboy]

     Am hoping this isn't too off-beat of a post.  Anyway, the topic is, "was ennis gay?" and it is one of the most popular and enduring topics
on this, and other forums.  You get your different sides of the issue showing up, and then, every single time, the discussion ends up on the issue
of....labels.  It's as if we're going around in circles.  It might help, if only a little, if we were careful to use "definitions", instead of "labels".
They're pretty closely related, true, but trying for definitions, while difficult, does avoid the toxicity and uproar over labels.
   I do thank Lamusica for spotting what I had said about science moving towards fairly sturdy definitions derived from physiological responses,
and also thank tpe, if I understand him correctly, for pointing to the further issue-the labels may not be the problem so much as the responses
to those labels.  Forgive me, Thomas, if I got that wrong.
  Anyway-just 2 thoughts.  First, I am always amazed at the criminals, and creeps, that (and I know this is crazy) seem to expect their behavior
to be part of the human spectrum of activity--after all, they're not...GAY.  It's as if all these cops and robbers types are all playing a game,
with almost equal respect, so long as they're not...gay.  Where do I get this lunacy from?  Watching the reactions between police and the crooks.
It's like-an eco-system of mutual respect.  Introduce "gay" and they are---outta there.  I have noticed, criminals get treated with grudging
respect---but gays....get bashed or create stupefaction.  I see the police going after gangs, but its like....a game between 2 groups, and then
you all can see police near gay bars----they are extremely uncomfortable.  Makes me wonder if a significant amount of abuse and crime is a
continuation of kid's games, taken to a new level, acceptable, if you're not gay.  Crime & law-enforcement-both childhood games.  That's a wild
thought, or impression, but it has crossed my mind. You can, for some types, be anything.....so long as you're inside the circle....not gay.
  And the second thought- if this issue is still with us....was ennis gay?...doesn't that at least establish a fundamental fact.....that the issue
isn't settled?  I love and appreciate all these posts, but had to point out the obvious--it's a worthy subject, but that it even comes up as
a question, should be understood as very significant.

Hi, Tony,

I meant to respond to your other posts regarding the latest scientific discoveries on the definition of being gay but haven't had time.

Permit me to respond to your post here first, and then return to what I see science has to say.

Firstly, I don't see definitions and labels are necessarily the same thing. In fact, I see a distinct difference. Definitions are used when people want to have a clearer understanding of the terms used. Labels on the other hand, are often used when people want to simply use a word that carries connotations that they already harbour, and do not wish to change. Academics and philosophers use definitions. People on the street use labels. When we can steer label-using people to think about definitions, we have achieved a little of the elimination of labels applied to people that we all dream of.

Secondly, the gay-bashing that you speak of is not new. The same has been happening to other labeled groups for centuries. I am certain you can think of other labels that inviting a beating not long ago, even in the US. Human hatred does not need reason to be violent. Sad, but true, and it comes from the erroneous convenience of labeling someone, and making that label stick, therefore making the person a caricature, a subhuman.

Finally, the fact that this question is asked, and asked repeated by people who love Brokeback Mountain, Ennis and Jack, speaks volume about the power and the need for us to categorize people and things. Why can't we simply accept Ennis as Ennis, and Jack as Jack, each person as an individual who loves another individual, regardless of sex or gender, or whatever? Why is it important to label one person gay or bisexual?

How do all the straight women feel about this? And the straight men? Does it matter that Ennis is gay? I think it was one of the reviews that dirtbiker posted, from a straight man, that speaks right to this issue, that the movie is not about gay cowboys, but a great love between two human beings. Why people keep insisting on seeing two gay cowboys, instead of the bond that binds them together for eternity, is, I guess, the same reason why some people see the glass as half-full, while others see it as half-empty.

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Just different meanings.

[Asali]

Why can't we simply accept Ennis as Ennis, and Jack as Jack, each person as an individual who loves another individual, regardless of sex or gender, or whatever? Why is it important to label one person gay or bisexual?

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Just different meanings.

I think all of us here can accept Ennis as Ennis and Jack as Jack without labels but we wish it could be this easy for everyone else.

[manhattangirl]

And look at what the labels got them...

They would have been far happier if the both ignored the labels and lived the love they shared.

The problem with Ennis' "I ain't queer' was that he was misled by those who used the label to believe that there was anything wrong with a man loving a man. If labels got them into trouble, why would we want to perpetuate them? They (labels applied to individuals) should be thrown into the dustbin of history along with all the other fallacies like the earth is flat, etc.

What you say is true, but in this story gay bashing was all too real, and real very much so for Ennis,  that he believes his father participated in it, how do you think this affected him?   I believe when he made the statement I'm not queer, is what I believe he thought of himself but this is when this split in him began.  We talk about how they lived on fringes of society, but wanting so much to be part of it.  So what  kept them on Brokeback Mountain?  They liked the scenery?  No but a  little word "queer", this word for Ennis meant death, thanks to dear old dad.    The beauty of their love, was confined to one place, but never stopped Ennis loving Jack or kept him away from Jack.  For me his love became totally internalized,  his love so deep , so big,  erupting at moments when he couldn't  contain it.   When they left the mountain that first summer, and he punches Jack, when he thought he might not see again,The Thanksgiving scene, Alma hit at the very heart of him, and who he was, the final confrontation, when Jack utters "I wish I knew how to quit you", which brings Ennis to his knees. 

"Queer" the word, was the deadly weapon, and kept them on that mountain.   We can argue whether Ennis was "Gay" or not till the cows come home, and that OK.   But can love supersede the fear ?

Ennis didn't understand he was loved until it was too late, and through his daughter he did understand it, because if she within one year knew the man she going to married loved her, he realized that Jack was telling him the same thing for the past twenty years. 

If there is on thing I've learned from this is how we, ourselves have to overcome our own fears, prejudices which keeps us trap on our own prison.

I hope I making sense.



   

[babytammy7]

The reason I fight against the use of labels on individuals is precisely the limitations each label has in describing a person. The statement or assertion that 'Ennis is gay' has a truth value of perhaps 20%. 'Ennis is straight' is equally misleading, and has a truth value that is also very low. Even the ambiguous 'Ennis is bisexual' is not satisfactory, either. There is no single label that satisfactorily describe Ennis' love for Jack. Without this most important aspect of Ennis, no label is adequate.

Similarly, historians often refer to Alexander as bisexual because of his love for Hephaestion. But was he really, or was he gay?

The gray area that Annie Proulx speaks of is, I believe, this range of human sexuality that goes from those who are 100% straight to those who are 100% gay, and then the many who are in between, not necessarily loving men and women at the same time, but perhaps different individuals depending on circumstances. I guess my point has been that human sexuality is much more complex than simply who is sleeping with whom.

I agree that putting away labels will help make the world a better place. I think this means we need to put away the power of labels by making them meaningless, as far as application to an individual is concerned. It is fine to speak of the gay community, the gay games, etc. But a single individual in the community, paradoxically, is more complex than the community, and the label gay becomes too small to describe the person properly. To use it indiscriminately is to give it more power than it should have, IMHO.

If Ennis was asked the question, are you gay? We should respect whatever answer he gives because that is who he is to his own mind. And if his behavior proves otherwise, we can have issue with convincing him of his erroneous view of himself. But, as far as the short story, and the movie is concerned, Ennis is more asexual than gay or bisexual or any other sexual label. To me, Ennis is about love and friendship. Sex was a result of the love and friendship, not the other way around.

Amazing post Andrew!!! I agree with you 100%. You read my mind. 

[aintfoolin]

  Very well stated MG, I feel Ennis's " I aint queer" is him distancing himself from the label, based on what he percieved it meant in his mind. Whatever definition "queer" meant to Ennis. Obviously it was a lable he did'nt want.
 When  he speaks of a "one shot" thing  "going on" (a contradiction in terms) I feel he is including the whole dance of courtship between him and Jack, leading up to and culminating in FNIT. That was ongoing, but that it can't last.  He is already in negative mode about the goings on in the tent. He is already defending what he feels is his "masculine honor" from this lable " queer"

 His homophobic ingrained teachings tells him that it's suppose to be wrong, but I feel Ennis felt alot right about it because of Jack. No matter how overwhelmingly wrong he thought it might be, he wanted Jack. With him, I feel it becomes a matter of *look at what I'm doing, not what I'm saying*. He had steeled himself from any negative judgements from Jack. They never came. In fact,  it is Jack's words "It's nobody's business but ours" that must have givin some comfort to Ennis, a feeling that Jack was in this with him , no blame, no judgements, no lables, paving they way to SNIT.

 Perhaps Jack was defining what they'd done with his "me niether" as just  two people who felt love for each other ,and expressed it in an act of love as many couples do. I tend to connect this scene up with the "no riens" scene where Ennis has now gone from a one-shot thing to confessing his uncontrollable desire to love Jack as long as they can ride it.  Full circle. MO.

[lancecowboy]

What you say is true, but in this story gay bashing was all too real, and real very much so for Ennis,  that he believes his father participated in it, how do you think this affected him?   I believe when he made the statement I'm not queer, is what I believe he thought of himself but this is when this split in him began.  We talk about how they lived on fringes of society, but wanting so much to be part of it.  So what  kept them on Brokeback Mountain?  They liked the scenery?  No but a  little word "queer", this word for Ennis meant death, thanks to dear old dad.    The beauty of their love, was confined to one place, but never stopped Ennis loving Jack or kept him away from Jack.  For me his love became totally internalized,  his love so deep , so big,  erupting at moments when he couldn't  contain it.   When they left the mountain that first summer, and he punches Jack, when he thought he might not see again,The Thanksgiving scene, Alma hit at the very heart of him, and who he was, the final confrontation, when Jack utters "I wish I knew how to quit you", which brings Ennis to his knees. 

"Queer" the word, was the deadly weapon, and kept them on that mountain.   We can argue whether Ennis was "Gay" or not till the cows come home, and that OK.   But can love supersede the fear ?

Ennis didn't understand he was loved until it was too late, and through his daughter he did understand it, because if she within one year knew the man she going to married loved her, he realized that Jack was telling him the same thing for the past twenty years. 

If there is on thing I've learned from this is how we, ourselves have to overcome our own fears, prejudices which keeps us trap on our own prison.

I hope I making sense.
 

You make perfect sense, manhattangirl. It is the internalized label that kept Ennis from seeing their love as it really is.

And you bring up a good point that I hadn't thought of, that hearing Alma Jr. speaking of Kurt loving her with such honesty and conviction made him realize how foolish he had been for twenty wasted years. Those tears in that scene are now more meaningful to me than ever. Thank you for that.

I think all of us here can accept Ennis as Ennis and Jack as Jack without labels but we wish it could be this easy for everyone else.

I agree with Asali also that it is precisely what we share in this forum that makes this place a home, a peaceful valley for rest, as Tony put it, that makes this a welcoming place without labels.

 

[tpe]

tpe, I agree with the bolded and colored red section. It is the central theme of the movie, that love was denied, both as a result of social pressure, and Ennis' own internalized social pressure.

I also agree that even today there are millions of people who would consider love between same sexes as perverse. But isn't that a different label? As I mentioned in response to aintfoolin, it is not the label itself that I object to. It is the application of the label to an individual, when it is highly approximate. It is like calling a rose a flower, and expect that label to carry significant meaning or power of description. It is too generic, and too limited to convey the beauty and specialness of a rose, especially a particularly lovely rose at the edge of bloom. It is the same to same that a person is gay, and expect that label to fully describe the person. Ennis is gay, as far as his love for Jack is concerned, but it is not the same as the gay love, as between Jack and the Mexican hustlers, or even the gay love between Jack and Randall, or the many others, when he rode more than bulls during the four years after Brokeback Mountain. The statement Jack is gay, perhaps, has a higher truth value, than Ennis is gay. When is it acceptable to apply the label? I am certain everyone will have their own opinion on this, and as already mentioned, it is not required or necessary to achieve agreement. Just my two cents worth when it comes to labels, I am against them sticking to people, 100%. People who wants to apply the label to themselves, that's a different story...

In the matter of the word "love", what I wanted most to point out is that even with this most universal of terms, people are NOT in agreement as to its meanings, connotations, and contexts.  And it can be specific to an individual.  When we say that Ennis was in love only with Jack, many people would object that we use even the word "love" to describe it.  These people would object to our saying that Ennis was in love in the first place.  They would rather claim that he was confused. For these people, our use of the word love is not just highly approximate -- it is downright wrong.

I don't know.  I tend to think that Ennis embodies quite beautifully many gays here in the US prior to the 1960s, where repression and denial were the words that described the lifestyle of most homosexuals in this country.  Jack would have been the rare exception, being more "open" I suppose, to his own feelings.  So in this sense, Ennis probably is more representative of gayness before the sexual revolution -- I would bet that many elderly gay men who watched the movie would identify with Ennis rather than Jack.

[tpe]

Similarly, historians often refer to Alexander as bisexual because of his love for Hephaestion. But was he really, or was he gay?

The point has been hotly debated, and historians even today are by no means convinced of bisexuality in this case -- on the contrary, historians from the time of Arrian and Plutarch have cited time and time again that Alexander seemed to have been more attracted to men and boys than to women -- in fact, this was what convinced the Persian king Darius that his mother and principal wife would remain inviolate after their capture by Alexander at the battle of Issus.

What is clear to many of these historians was that Alexander married Darius's daughter and the Bactrian Roxanna as a matter of policy, and not truly out of love.  "Love" was clearly reserved for Hephaestion and the Persian eunuch Bagoas.

One telling evidence cited by these historians is that Alexander and Hephaestion remained intimately close even after they were no longer ephebes -- beyond their teens and into their 20s.  This went beyond what was acceptable in Greece, where bisexuality was usually understood in terms of man-boy conventions, and what we now call homosexuality was understood in terms of man-man relationships.

Sorry, I digress.  But the fact that Jack and Ennis were intimately involved with each other way beyond their teens would not have been understood in terms of bisexuality in the Ancient World.

[AndyIOW]

Watching the movie again last night at the NFT, I was reminded of Ang Lee's masterly strokes in giving us the first pointers towards Ennis' sexuality. On two seperate occasions,(jump off and E looking up to the mountains where J is working) the camera lingers on Ennis' gaze towards Jack. This I believe, is not the habit of straight man but rather, in this case, of a man who's sexuality is not really in question, just the realisation of it for probably the first time. I believe E to be naive but for the most part, honest. See how he looks on Jack as they ride home after sorting out the Chilean sheep. "You'll run the sheep off... '' he says with the most beguiling of smiles for Jack as he plays away at his harmonica. Ennis is gay, to my mind, as best described by AP as country gay. Up in the mountains he as free to let go of that part of himself that ordinarily be kept under lock and key. The moment he comes down from the mountain, the armour goes on and the denials take the reins. Up on the mountains's a different story. When AP described their love making as "brilliantly charged'', I just don't see a straight man nor one who believes himself gay only for Jack. Straight men don't **** other men, that's a gay man's job. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the definition of gay and straight bears discussion but I would simplify it as something to be likened to a bar code. Our sexuality is, essentially based at either end of the spectrum but for many of us and at diverse times, somewhere between the two extremes lay our own sexuality. Who the hell is anyone to pigeon hole us?
Here endeth my first lesson.

Andy.

PS, Looking at it that way, then it's assumed that gay men are as capable of relating sexually to a woman as  straight men are to a man. Something they either choose or a predisposed towards.

[welshwitch]

It occurs to me that a label is usually a piece of paper or card, often square or oblong, with straight sides and right-angled corners. In the middle it has a name or description, usually one word or a short phrase. in other words it is very limited, but once it's stuck on you don't look closely at the contents so it saves trouble. however, if one day you pick up the labelled object, examine it and find the contents are differnet from what the label has led you to expect, you may feel surprised, irritated, angry, bewildered, all sorts of things.
So maybe labels are just another way of limiting people, preventing them from thinking for themselves and predisposing them to think along specific lines.

[tpe]

Andy, welcome to the discussion, and thanks for the first lesson. 


Let me address part of what you noted in your last post, along with WW's last comments.

There are certainly 2 tendencies at play: people who feel that the term "gay" pigeonholes them, and those who look at the term "gay" as something that liberates them.

The term "Jew" approximates this to a certain extent, no?  Although it primarily refers to blood lineage, Jewishness goes way beyond this, encompassing culture, history, and a societal identity.  One can also look at "Jew" in two ways: a tendency to pigeonhole/limit a person in ways that echo the mentality of the ghetto, or else, a defining identity that one takes to mean something special, something unqiue, something that is to be treasured -- something that puts a people apart.

Again, it is not the "label" that is at fault here.  It can mean many things, depending on an individual's point of view.

[lachlan]

I don't often get access to the internet and when I do it's brief,  so I haven't had an oportunity to read through this thread in depth.  However,  it made me recall an account some years ago of a meeting between the Mayor of Montreal and the President of Haiti.   The President asked the mayor just what percentage of Montreal's population is black.  "About 10%" was the reply.   Then the president responded with, "That's just the same as Haiti;  10% of our population is black."   Of course,  it makes sense when you consider that in Montreal a person of mixed ancestry is classed as "black";  in Haiti, they are regarded as "white".  In each case the exception to the majority.   This in turn reminded me of the British Liberal politician,  with a secure marriage and several children, who was once asked if he was "gay".  He said he wasn't. Some time later,  a tabloid newspaper attacked him for lying as they'd uncovered an incident in his youth in which he'd had sex with another fellow.  That, according to them, meant that he is "gay" and therefore dishonest. I know many men who are sexually active with women but,  do to circumstances or the fate of experience, have had a sexual encounter - even a relationship - with another male.  But, as that's not their standard practice, they would honestly feel odd being called "gay".  We would not out an openly "gay" man as "straight" because he had a sexual experience or two with a woman. I have known many "Ennis" types in my lifetime; I have a very deep relationship with one now.  He sees an attractive woman and is sexually aroused; an attractive man and he feels challenged.  Nevertheless,  he has indulged in sexual horseplay with another male while in the army and has had a loving relationship with me for many years;  occasionally physically expressed. He gets extremely annoyed if someone refers to him as "gay";  it seems limiting and quite inappropriate.  When Ennis said, "You know I ain't queer," he was stating his own feeling and will I respect him for it.  To him it is a loaded term and its implications seem quite inappropriate to the way he feels about himself.

[Asali]

Very good post lachlan, it makes a lot of sense.  It certainly is a loaded term as there are just so many variations of sexuality rather than straight and gay.

I hope you get time to read this and many other interesting threads sometime.

[tpe]

I don't often get access to the internet and when I do it's brief,  so I haven't had an oportunity to read through this thread in depth.  However,  it made me recall an account some years ago of a meeting between the Mayor of Montreal and the President of Haiti.   The President asked the mayor just what percentage of Montreal's population is black.  "About 10%" was the reply.   Then the president responded with, "That's just the same as Haiti;  10% of our population is black."   Of course,  it makes sense when you consider that in Montreal a person of mixed ancestry is classed as "black";  in Haiti, they are regarded as "white".  In each case the exception to the majority.   This in turn reminded me of the British Liberal politician,  with a secure marriage and several children, who was once asked if he was "gay".  He said he wasn't. Some time later,  a tabloid newspaper attacked him for lying as they'd uncovered an incident in his youth in which he'd had sex with another fellow.  That, according to them, meant that he is "gay" and therefore dishonest. I know many men who are sexually active with women but,  do to circumstances or the fate of experience, have had a sexual encounter - even a relationship - with another male.  But, as that's not their standard practice, they would honestly feel odd being called "gay".  We would not out an openly "gay" man as "straight" because he had a sexual experience or two with a woman. I have known many "Ennis" types in my lifetime; I have a very deep relationship with one now.  He sees an attractive woman and is sexually aroused; an attractive man and he feels challenged.  Nevertheless,  he has indulged in sexual horseplay with another male while in the army and has had a loving relationship with me for many years;  occasionally physically expressed. He gets extremely annoyed if someone refers to him as "gay";  it seems limiting and quite inappropriate.  When Ennis said, "You know I ain't queer," he was stating his own feeling and will I respect him for it.  To him it is a loaded term and its implications seem quite inappropriate to the way he feels about himself.

You are always welcome here, lachlan, whenever you find the time. 

All the studies in the late 20th century are careful to distinguish between whether a male is gay or had a homosexual experience.  In all these studies, it is the orientation that matters the most.

It is very well known from these studies that there is a percentage of straight males that have had one or more homosexual experiences in their lifetimes, and yet would consider their orientation to be staright.  What is less quoted is the NOT SO ASTONISHING fact that there was a SIGNIFICANT percentage of those who called themselves gay who had one or more HETEROSEXUAL experiences in their life -- far more significant that those among straights.

This should not surprise us, given that many gays up to the later part of the 20th century considered it necessary to marry or have sexual relations with women in order to maintain their cover.  Again, what mattered most in this was their ORIENTATION -- no matter what acts they had done (male-female or male-male/female-female), it was who they preferred to love and what connections were truly genuine.  It has never been in question that straight men are capable of homosexual relationships, and it has never been in question that gay men were capable of heterosexual relationships. 

The fact that the majority of older gays had had sexual relationships with women does not make them straight.  In the same fashion, straight men who have had homosexual experiences are not necessarily gay because of it.  If had to do with preference/orientation.

Now, let us go back to Ennis.  It is NOT that important whether or not he had sexual relationships with only one MALE and had multiple relationships with females.  From what we have just discussed, this proves nothing.  The pertinent question is that who did he truly love and connect with.  The answer is obvious: he loved Jack.

It can be argued ad infinitum whether or not this proves Ennis to be gay.  But I claim that this certainly is enough to prove that he wasn't straight.


 

[Asali]

It can be argued ad infinitum whether or not this proves Ennis to be gay.  But I claim that is certainly sufficient to prove that he wasn't straight.

So he wasn't straight because of his relationship with Jack but possibly not gay because Jack was the only male as far as we know he was attracted to

[tpe]

So he wasn't straight because of his relationship with Jack but possibly not gay because Jack was the only male as far as we know he was attracted to

Not really.    It can be argued that he was bisexual -- that he did love Alma as much as he loved Jack at some point in the relationship.  But this can be argued, and not really proven.