Topic: was ennis gay ?

[Asali]

I guess it comes down to sexual identity as opposed to sexual orientation.

Ennis identified as straight but this was not entirely his true sexual orientation as we know and if he had never met Jack would these feelings of homosexuality ever have come to light or would they have remained suppressed.

[tpe]

You bring up an interesting distinction, Asali: identification versus orientation.  To some people, orientation may be less tricky, as some would claim that identification may not always reveal what is truly underneath the hood. 

I know this is not exactly what you mean, but I have known a few true bisexuals (as far as I could discern) where it does make sense to talk about identification.  One of them in particular has proposed to a straight woman who loves him and knows his condition.  He identifies with her strongly enough to propose marriage, even though he told her that he maintains a strong attachment to a male "friend".  The last time I heard, she is understandably wary of the proposal, and has not said yes.  I don't claim to understand fully what is at play here, but I find it most fascinating,

 

[tpe]

This may come as an aside, but there is a new movie out there that also seeks to address the complexities that BBM grappled with in relation the sexual identity and/or orientation.  But it muddies the waters a bit more by throwing in the subject of race.

http://ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=5007.msg669442#msg669442

 

[Tony]

    Well, like a moth to the flame, can't seem to resist posting here.  It's so difficult of an issue and am, lately, trying avoid the controversial
stuff, but, can't seem to follow through.
    Anyway, tpe, I hope eventually most people will see, as you and others do, that some sexual activity, same-gender, is not necessarily
defining.  Depends on the circumstances.  You've gone on, though, to underline that Ennis loved Jack, and placed great relevance to that,
as opposed to the sexuality.  And rightly so.  You can get around something 2 guys do, say, in prison, or in adolescent experimenting, but
when the issue of love comes up, that's a big wall to get over.
   Am willing to change my own views, if I ever have no way to sustain them.  But I think I could try to point out that the love issue can be
explained in the same way as the sexual issue......it was not generic.  I don't see Ennis as being able to love any other male than Jack, just
as I don't see him as capable of having same-gender sex with anyone else but Jack.  And also, when Jack broke down those walls, it would
seem to me, were Ennis gay or bi-, the walls having been brought down, the expected generic interest in other males should have been there,
and they never showed up.  It was always, only Jack, and neither the SS nor film show any movement to generic interest, which would have
to be there.  Shows up in Jack, yes. Not a trace, in Ennis. (which is maybe why there's no huge interest in a Was Jack Gay? thread).
   Also, would like to say, Lachlan's posts rang a bell.  Twice, I have posted here about an infrequent sub-group of straight guys that I have
run into, and then deleted those posts as too personal (although BabyTammy caught one of them before I deleted and wanted it back).
Ran into about 5 of them and noted around 25 characteristics they had in common.  That's a lot, and means those critters I've nicknamed
"Boxers", after the boxing sport, do exist as mathematical probability would not allow so much in common.  They are straight, and seem to
be vulnerable to one and only one male, and have no interest in any other males.  And they do well with women.  So I wondered if Lachlan
had run into one of these "Boxers".  Ennis had about 80% of those personality traits, so that was in my post.
  Anyway, back to the question.  Tpe, and others, have rejected the concept that any same-gender activity and you then are no longer straight.
He went further with the obvious further development, of love.  He has said before the issue can never really be settled and the best we can
do is explore and I am certain that is the best answer of all. Did want, however, to note---whether love or sex, when the walls came down,
Ennis had zero generic interest past Jack and THAT is something that is a driving force, not only in this issue, but in the further issue of,
just how great was this love?  That great?  To break every rule?  It is then not labels were dealing with, but that roaring train at the start
of the film, a force powerful enough to smash through anything in its way.

[tpe]

Thanks Tony, for sharing your thoughts.

A simplistic way to "define" gayness is to say that it seeks to describe a man who prefers the love of other men.  Again, I should stress that this is too simplistic to be all-encompassing of the reality, but it contains that grain of truth -- that it is the love that matters, and not the sexual act per se.

[AndyIOW]

I guess it comes down to sexual identity as opposed to sexual orientation.

Ennis identified as straight but this was not entirely his true sexual orientation as we know and if he had never met Jack would these feelings of homosexuality ever have come to light or would they have remained suppressed.

[AndyIOW]

I guess it comes down to sexual identity as opposed to sexual orientation.

Ennis identified as straight but this was not entirely his true sexual orientation as we know and if he had never met Jack would these feelings of homosexuality ever have come to light or would they have remained suppressed.

This is interesting.

I would say that Ennis was already aware of his feelings for other men, he just wasn't experienced (Yes, a virgin) and carrying around with him the greatest deterrent to do anything about it by way of his daddy. I think the portrayal of Ennis in the movie in the early scenes where he glances tellingly at Jack more than once tells us that as far as the director was concerned, Ennis had all that it took. Glad to say that in Jack he met the key to his locked heart and emotions but if he hadn't have met Jack, then he may well have gone through life a seriously closeted (even more so) and who knows, virgin window shopper.
To suppress something requires the knowledge and acceptance of it's existence... coming to light suggests an unawareness in the first place.  Like I say, very interesting.

[aintfoolin]

This is interesting.

I would say that Ennis was already aware of his feelings for other men, he just wasn't experienced (Yes, a virgin) and carrying around with him the greatest deterrent to do anything about it by way of his daddy. I think the portrayal of Ennis in the movie in the early scenes where he glances tellingly at Jack more than once tells us that as far as the director was concerned, Ennis had all that it took. Glad to say that in Jack he met the key to his locked heart and emotions but if he hadn't have met Jack, then he may well have gone through life a seriously closeted (even more so) and who knows, virgin window shopper.
To suppress something requires the knowledge and acceptance of it's existence... coming to light suggests an unawareness in the first place.  Like I say, very interesting.

 I love this topic, such a personal question ..Was Ennis Gay?  I so agree with all the above very interesting  posts and would like to add.
 It was such a secretive thing to Ennis. His personality was not open. More withdrawn  in fact ,which contributes to the "private" aspects of his feeling s for Jack. He was sneaking with Jack while still with Alma which says alot. I think Jack was his FIRST true love though he  did marry her.  His first experience with real love., impacting him the most.

I also feel that Ennis came to NEED Jack in his life. Had friendship, companionship and love all wrapped up in one person.  Frankly, imo even  if Alma was a different kind of woman and not divorced Ennis  going on to accept her husband's "other life" I feel Ennis would've  went on seeing Jack anyway. While IDing as straight Ennis just could'nt stay away. This to me indicates that he  fell in love with Jack, preferred his company over his wife's.

 There is also  a need for him to fit into society but  has the knowledge that his community is not beholding to gays, as he had seen , thus the secrecy , but  "aint no reins on this one "speaks volumes. It means that Ennis , at some point has come to terms with his feelings for Jack. He is admitting to himself as well as Jack that even if he wanted to, he could'nt help wanting him. Not just sexually, but in everyway ,yet acknowledging  he was not free to have this life whenever he wanted.

Still does'nt state firmly that he was gay, only that anyone can can fall in love with anyone if the time, place and person is right. I also feel that his experiences with Jack may have opened Ennis up to admiring other guys, if not ever acting on it ,but still recognizing the possibilities. My take.

[lancecowboy]

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 said exactly so well what I have been unable to express. Thank you. As much as I applaud the Gay and Proud attitude, I also believe that there are individuals who do not fit into the "gay" mold. I like particularly you statement about "outing" a gay man for having had sex with a woman. To me, sexuality is a very private issue, and a person's privacy should be respected. I think everyone should be allowed to express themselves however they like, as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others in a destructive way. For example, in the movie I watched recently, Mambo Italiano, a "gay" couple are closeted. One is a macho muscular cop and the other is a more sensitive artistic writer. When Angelo, the latter wants to come out to his family, his boyfriend objected vehemently, and eventually they broke up, with him marrying a woman.

Angelo is certainly gay. But is his boyfriend gay or bi? Only he knows for sure.

My point is only that a label is insignificant compared to the relationship, of any kind or gender. Ennis placed too much importance on the label queer, and missed out on the most important love of his life for twenty years. He finally embraced that love, but alone. Is he gay at that point? Does he fit any conventional definition of being gay? Does it matter?

Thanks, lachlan, when you take your limited online time to post such eloquent explanation of our beloved Ennis.

[lancecowboy]

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.

[...]

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.
 

I agree with you there, tpe. Being straight is overrated, anyhow.

By the way, since we are getting into definitions, how would you define orientation? Do you mean sexual arousal or do you mean romantic attraction? I understand we are stepping into fuzzy areas where definitive sharp boundaries are impossible, but I just want to make a distinction between Ennis' attraction to Jack, which is one-of, and Jack's attraction to men, which is generic. Jack also loved Ennis, and Ennis only, but he was also attracted to other men. This was NOT the case with Ennis, at least in the short story, and certainly by all appearances in the movie also.

So, Ennis is certainly not straight (as in 100% straight), but you can hardly claim that he is 100% gay like Jack.

[lancecowboy]

    Well, like a moth to the flame, can't seem to resist posting here.  It's so difficult of an issue and am, lately, trying avoid the controversial stuff, but, can't seem to follow through.
    Anyway, tpe, I hope eventually most people will see, as you and others do, that some sexual activity, same-gender, is not necessarily defining.  Depends on the circumstances.  You've gone on, though, to underline that Ennis loved Jack, and placed great relevance to that, as opposed to the sexuality.  And rightly so.  You can get around something 2 guys do, say, in prison, or in adolescent experimenting, but when the issue of love comes up, that's a big wall to get over.
   Am willing to change my own views, if I ever have no way to sustain them.  But I think I could try to point out that the love issue can be explained in the same way as the sexual issue......it was not generic.  I don't see Ennis as being able to love any other male than Jack, just
as I don't see him as capable of having same-gender sex with anyone else but Jack.  And also, when Jack broke down those walls, it would seem to me, were Ennis gay or bi-, the walls having been brought down, the expected generic interest in other males should have been there,
and they never showed up.  It was always, only Jack, and neither the SS nor film show any movement to generic interest, which would have to be there.  Shows up in Jack, yes. Not a trace, in Ennis. (which is maybe why there's no huge interest in a Was Jack Gay? thread).
   Also, would like to say, Lachlan's posts rang a bell.  Twice, I have posted here about an infrequent sub-group of straight guys that I have run into, and then deleted those posts as too personal (although BabyTammy caught one of them before I deleted and wanted it back).
Ran into about 5 of them and noted around 25 characteristics they had in common.  That's a lot, and means those critters I've nicknamed "Boxers", after the boxing sport, do exist as mathematical probability would not allow so much in common.  They are straight, and seem to
be vulnerable to one and only one male, and have no interest in any other males.  And they do well with women.  So I wondered if Lachlan had run into one of these "Boxers".  Ennis had about 80% of those personality traits, so that was in my post.
  Anyway, back to the question.  Tpe, and others, have rejected the concept that any same-gender activity and you then are no longer straight.
He went further with the obvious further development, of love.  He has said before the issue can never really be settled and the best we can do is explore and I am certain that is the best answer of all. Did want, however, to note---whether love or sex, when the walls came down, Ennis had zero generic interest past Jack and THAT is something that is a driving force, not only in this issue, but in the further issue of, just how great was this love?  That great?  To break every rule?  It is then not labels were dealing with, but that roaring train at the start of the film, a force powerful enough to smash through anything in its way.

Tony, your analysis is always amazing. 25 Boxer personality traits, and Ennis has 80%. I believe this deserves its own thread and I for one would love to learn from the master. But, I also understand this can be a personal subject and will not push for further information if you do not wish it.

I just want to appreciate your final paragraph, bolded above, which links the imagery of the roaring train with the love that is a force of nature, powerful enough to smash through Ennis' fortress, and turn the man, whatever his orientation, into a lover.

Thanks for that.

[lamusica]

Tony, you are so very astute about Ennis's feelings for Jack and only Jack.  I'm not sure if this puts Ennis into any particularly named category ( and don't really care), but it certainly describes Ennis.  As you say, there is nothing generic about Ennis's feelings toward this one and only man.  Personally, I think this is the big difference between Jack and Ennis, and the main reason I have always maintained that Ennis is not gay in the sense of prefering man/man love exclusively.  I like your term "generic" to differentiate between Ennis's and Jack's sexual identities.  That's a clean and clear word that sums up Jack so very well. Jack wanted/needed same sex activitiy ( whether sex or love) and actively went after it. Ennis, however, was interested in only Jack.  This is also why I maintain that the friendship came first with Ennis, then the physical possibilities.  Jack answered the need Ennis had for intimacy with another human being first; then he answered the need for a physical partner. Wonderful discussion once again, Tony.

[babytammy7]

Tony, you are so very astute about Ennis's feelings for Jack and only Jack.  I'm not sure if this puts Ennis into any particularly named category ( and don't really care), but it certainly describes Ennis.  As you say, there is nothing generic about Ennis's feelings toward this one and only man.  Personally, I think this is the big difference between Jack and Ennis, and the main reason I have always maintained that Ennis is not gay in the sense of prefering man/man love exclusively.  I like your term "generic" to differentiate between Ennis's and Jack's sexual identities.  That's a clean and clear word that sums up Jack so very well. Jack wanted/needed same sex activitiy ( whether sex or love) and actively went after it. Ennis, however, was interested in only Jack.  This is also why I maintain that the friendship came first with Ennis, then the physical possibilities.  Jack answered the need Ennis had for intimacy with another human being first; then he answered the need for a physical partner. Wonderful discussion once again, Tony.

So well said LM!!! I've always thought like that!!

Amazing post Tony; BTW you should post "that post" I read.......It was great.

Andrew I agree with you 100%.

So I think I'm in your team guys (LM, LC, and Tony). So beautiful posts.

[Tony]

   Well, here goes another attempt to get past my reluctance to describe something I encountered in my life that may have some relevance
to Ennis' sexuality.  I had posted, twice before, about a sub-group of males that I nicknamed "Boxers" and then deleted them.  BabyTammy
caught one of them and urged me to reconsider.  I will try, again, because I think there's several of you that might be interested.
   I have had 5 affairs, over the years, that did not make sense, as the guys were straight, and had zero interest in other males.  Since they,
er...,focused on my own relief, they were difficult to fend off.  But why I deleted was the strong resentment towards me that these relationships
provoked.  My gay friends were stupefied, and some of them deeply disturbed by their definitions not holding up.  And gay-tolerant women
were very threatened, it seemed, by the existence of this sub-group.
   I was very confused by the similarities of these guys, in personality traits, that I began listing them, and quit counting, at 25 shared traits.
Lance, and Ayashae, with their scientific backgrounds, might understand better that the mathematical improbability means---these critters,
this sub-group, do exist.  But another way of explaining is: How many people prefer the color blue? A limited number. How many prefer blue and
tennis is their favorite sport? Narrows it down further. Narrow down by 25 traits, and you've got ssomething not random but, a "type".
   Am doing this in 2 posts.  The one immediately following will list some of those traits and compare them to Ennis.  In the interest of fairness,
I have not skewed them towards those that show up in Ennis.  If nothing else, I hope these 2 posts are considered neutral, with regard to
the "label" issue and only an additional piece of experience that may, or may not relate to Ennis, as you see fit.

[Tony]

   Here are the characteristics of the group, referred to, above, as "Boxers" and whether Ennis fit the profile.

   1) are the last person in the room you would consider as possibly                  Ennis-very much along these lines
       having same-gender sex.  A kind of casual virility, not posed, or
       over-done---very natural and inspiring confidence in other males.

   2) get along well with other men, but are basically loners, and have               Ennis- Bullseye
       no close male friends.

   3) Very non-verbal.  Takes a crowbar to get any words out of them              Ennis- dead-on bullseye

   4) Ok with, but not really into competing in team sports.  Good at                 Ennis- unclear. Good at riding horses, but no real info here
      individual sports (track, swimming, martial arts, boxing), from which
      I came up with the nickname-Boxer

   5) do not identify themselves as gay, and, uh....by their awkwardness           Ennis-we do know, he showed no interest in anyone but Jack
      prove their inexperience.  Have zero interest in other males and, further,
      find that thought repulsive.

   6) have an unexpected heroic streak.  These are the guys who suddenly       Ennis-very heroic with the bullies at the 4th of July incident
       get tough, in a crisis.  One was the most highly decorated war hero
       from my city.

   7) function very well with women, but usually end up as good husbands        Ennis-can't easily compare, although he tried to be a good husband
       on the 2nd or 3rd try, and then it's for a lifetime.

    an unusual simplicity in expecting day-to-day transactions being             Ennis-nothing here, except he did not want a loan from Jack, and
      fair.  Greatly resent being stolen from, or being used, financially                     and kept money issues out of the relationship.
 
   9) unusually hygienic                                                                           Ennis- unknown
 
 10) need affection, but never kissing on the mouth                                     Ennis- SNIT says ---the opposite

 11)derive a sense of power by providing relief, and prefer                             Ennis---the opposite, from what we know
     being a bottom dude

 12) very controlling as to when sex occurs.  I ended that last                       Ennis- this was the central problem.  He set up the schedule.
     relationship, calling it "drive-by sex"

That's enough.  The other traits, 25, and counting, have a much higher corelation to Ennis, but the above are primary traits.  The best I could
make of Boxers was that they were haunted by loneliness, found in me someone they felt they could trust, looked for an extremely close friendship,
and then saw that the way to enforce that friendship was by a sexual affair.  The key word is "enforcing".  It was important to them that we
stayed on close terms.
   I regret the length of these posts, and, trust me, I regret their unusual nature (which is why I deleted them before).  But there are several of
you that might find this strange sub-group of interest.  And, please---am not trying to bolster the Ennis was straight theory.  But this might
explain why I have tilted in that direction.  I follow, absolutely, tpe's saying the issue can never be finally settled and maybe shouldn't be.
And also Heath Ledger's remark that he hoped  BBM raised more questions, rather than giving a definitive answer.
  If I'm road-kill again, from these posts, oh,well.... BabyTammy asked me to try again, so did Lance, and so I did.
                   



                   

[Tony]

   The emoticon on trait #8 was not from me.  Probably a moderator on their 3rd martini.

[lancecowboy]

   Well, here goes another attempt to get past my reluctance to describe something I encountered in my life that may have some relevance
to Ennis' sexuality.  I had posted, twice before, about a sub-group of males that I nicknamed "Boxers" and then deleted them.  BabyTammy
caught one of them and urged me to reconsider.  I will try, again, because I think there's several of you that might be interested.
   I have had 5 affairs, over the years, that did not make sense, as the guys were straight, and had zero interest in other males.  Since they,
er...,focused on my own relief, they were difficult to fend off.  But why I deleted was the strong resentment towards me that these relationships
provoked.  My gay friends were stupefied, and some of them deeply disturbed by their definitions not holding up.  And gay-tolerant women
were very threatened, it seemed, by the existence of this sub-group.
   I was very confused by the similarities of these guys, in personality traits, that I began listing them, and quit counting, at 25 shared traits.
Lance, and Ayashae, with their scientific backgrounds, might understand better that the mathematical improbability means---these critters,
this sub-group, do exist.  But another way of explaining is: How many people prefer the color blue? A limited number. How many prefer blue and
tennis is their favorite sport? Narrows it down further. Narrow down by 25 traits, and you've got ssomething not random but, a "type".
   Am doing this in 2 posts.  The one immediately following will list some of those traits and compare them to Ennis.  In the interest of fairness,
I have not skewed them towards those that show up in Ennis.  If nothing else, I hope these 2 posts are considered neutral, with regard to
the "label" issue and only an additional piece of experience that may, or may not relate to Ennis, as you see fit.

Hi, Tony. You raised a couple interesting points.

Firstly, the resentment from the gay community and the gay-tolerant women feeling threatened by the straight men who veer astray, so to speak, are coming from two different places. I think some members of the gay community believe that (rightly or wrongly is another issue) some gay men hide behind the label of bisexuality in order not to be totally honest with their own homophobia, as Ennis was accused. On the other hand, the straight women are concerned that their husbands can be unfaithful, and they feel (rightly) that they cannot compete against a man for his heart, if that is his orientation. The women want certainty and commitment in the faithfulness of the husband. Anything that raises that doubt is a threat to them. I understand and appreciate that. It is a difficult choice to make, whether to stand by a man who you thought you knew when you were married. Oprah did a few shows on this and they are all worth watching to understand the different personalities and circumstances, including a man who became a woman, with the wife's support.

Secondly, the shared traits in your boxers are not surprising since there are many personality tests that categorize and "label" people into types, i.e. Myers-Briggs, among many others, and they are valid generalization of a particular specific personality trait. However, I would NOT go further and begin "Predicting" who is a boxer by matching these twenty five traits. There is a difference between finding similarities among a group, and finding an "exclusive definition" of a group. I look forward to your sharing your personal experience. Thank you.

 

[lancecowboy]

Hi, Tony, thanks for the post. I formatted your text in a table for easier reading. Please correct me if I misplaced anything.

Looking at these traits, I can see Ennis fits into many as you indicated. As well as being hygienic. His trailer is spotless. I can also recognize many of these traits in the one affair in my past, including the "drive-by" one. That was also the breaking point for me. I hadn't thought about him for a quite a while. We were together only briefly almost twenty years ago. He was the first affair I had, and I can see his resemblance to Ennis, now that you mentioned it. Of all the ill-fated affairs in the past, I missed him the most. He would call up out of the blue, come over, and we would live the motel scene in the short story. After a while, I met someone else who wanted more than drive-by, but that was a mistake, too, but I digress.

I think the central core of these characteristics is a man's man who is comfortable in his own skin, but is also lonely and enjoys the company of another man who he respects, who is also comfortable in his own skin, who he can relate to without pretense or expectations. The sex was secondary for the purpose of fulfilling the partner. The companionship is the core.

Thanks, again, Tony, for sharing this.

   Here are the characteristics of the group, referred to, above, as "Boxers" and whether Ennis fit the profile.

1 ) are the last person in the room you would consider as possibly having same-gender sex.  A kind of casual virility, not posed, or over-done---very natural and inspiring confidence in other males.	Ennis-very much along these lines
2 ) get along well with other men, but are basically loners, and have no close male friends.	Ennis- Bullseye
3 ) Very non-verbal.  Takes a crowbar to get any words out of them	Ennis- dead-on bullseye
4 ) Ok with, but not really into competing in team sports.  Good at individual sports (track, swimming, martial arts, boxing), from which I came up with the nickname-Boxer	Ennis- unclear. Good at riding horses, but no real info here
5 ) do not identify themselves as gay, and, uh....by their awkwardness prove their inexperience.  Have zero interest in other males and, further, find that thought repulsive.	Ennis-we do know, he showed no interest in anyone but Jack
6 ) have an unexpected heroic streak.  These are the guys who suddenly get tough, in a crisis.  One was the most highly decorated war hero from my city.	Ennis-very heroic with the bullies at the 4th of July incident
7 ) function very well with women, but usually end up as good husbands on the 2nd or 3rd try, and then it's for a lifetime.	Ennis-can't easily compare, although he tried to be a good husband
8 ) an unusual simplicity in expecting day-to-day transactions being fair.  Greatly resent being stolen from, or being used, financially and kept money issues out of the relationship.	Ennis-nothing here, except he did not want a loan from Jack
9 ) unusually hygienic	Ennis- unknown
10 ) need affection, but never kissing on the mouth	Ennis- SNIT says ---the opposite
11 )derive a sense of power by providing relief, and prefer being a bottom dude	Ennis---the opposite, from what we know
12 ) very controlling as to when sex occurs.  I ended that last relationship, calling it "drive-by sex"	Ennis- this was the central problem.  He set up the schedule.

That's enough.  The other traits, 25, and counting, have a much higher corelation to Ennis, but the above are primary traits.  The best I could make of Boxers was that they were haunted by loneliness, found in me someone they felt they could trust, looked for an extremely close friendship, and then saw that the way to enforce that friendship was by a sexual affair.  The key word is "enforcing".  It was important to them that we stayed on close terms.
   I regret the length of these posts, and, trust me, I regret their unusual nature (which is why I deleted them before).  But there are several of you that might find this strange sub-group of interest.  And, please---am not trying to bolster the Ennis was straight theory.  But this might
explain why I have tilted in that direction.  I follow, absolutely, tpe's saying the issue can never be finally settled and maybe shouldn't be.
And also Heath Ledger's remark that he hoped  BBM raised more questions, rather than giving a definitive answer.
  If I'm road-kill again, from these posts, oh,well.... BabyTammy asked me to try again, so did Lance, and so I did.

[lancecowboy]

   The emoticon on trait #8 was not from me.  Probably a moderator on their 3rd martini.

No, it ain't the moderator. It's the cool emoticon 8 ) make sure there is no space between 8 and the paranthesis.

[lamusica]

Once again, Tony, you have made your point very well.  IF we need to categorize people's sexuality, and IF we have to use labels, yours certainly make sense and Ennis certainly fits the Boxer's description.  I'm sure you find it hard to share some of the more personal parts of your own history, but they do help clarify your thoughts, and thus, help others to understand your very astute deductions.
      I do not intend to change the topic, but I just have to say ONE thing about labels -- something I have avoided commenting upon, but just can't keep my mouth shut any longer.  You touched upon this when you discussed the future which will further and further delineate everyone by narrowing all the definitions.  Historically, it is labels that have ruled the day: one drop of Jewish blood got you the concentration camp and death; one drop of Negroid blood got you enslaved; one drop of holy water saved your soul while everyone went to hell, etc.  As horrific as these things were, they were real and those who subscribed to them were the real monsters on this earth.  Can a label ever be a good thing?  Perhaps when stratefying species or classifying blood types, etc.  But labels that serve to box in certain individuals remain as deadly today as they ever were, and they frighten me in a way nothing else can.  I know some people feel the need to, in their own mind, at least, pinpoint Ennis's sexuality for once and for all, but I wonder why there is that need? What makes human beings think they need to know everything and have the right to injure others in their search?  Oh, well, just another rant!

[Tony]

     Lance, I knew you would come through for me, accept the information as reasonable enough, and add in some useful observations.  And I am
very sorry for your lost love.  In my case, I miss the Boxers....as friends, as I have a strong male tribal need for friendship with other males without
reference to sex.
   Lamusica, am so very gratified that you, too, see the eventual problem of our being ever more pegged by scientific tests that are emerging.
You made reference to those extreme times in history, when just one part of oneself being related to a group being battered or killed, made you
subject to those same extremes.  There is an historic battle, ongoing, to find out why we can, as human beings, be so oppressive on a massive
scale.  And the humanities, in college, are where we are lagging.  Maybe because they can't find the courage to study the grotesque.  We need
to know WHY the prison guards at Auschwitz went home to their wives and felt sorry...for THEMSELVES!!!!  We've got to learn the equations
created by the human mind that can allow this, and then---disrupt them.
  Many abusive people have a hidden equation that THEY are the victim.  Disrupt that, and their ability to justify causing pain is undermined.
I'm interested, Lamusica, more than you can ever know, in finding out the why. Until then, we have to do as you do, and as the film BBM does,
ask questions and promote tolerance, and resist co-operating with the uglies of the world.
  But the matter of labels....I do leave that to be settled by the rest of you.  Just know that the goodness of your heart is a joy to me.

[Tony]

   Oh, gosh-am having trouble keeping myself from multiple-posting.  We're due a snowstorm here in Norfolk, this evening, and it's got me jittery,
in case it's real bad and the power goes out.
   Lamusica, back to labels.  Whether we believe in the Old Testament or not, it is interesting that the Lord had the animals brought before
Adam for him to name, or, if you will, label.  This spoke to the freedom he granted Adam, but also shows that we have an inherent need to
classify, or label.  The same Lord refused, Himself, to be labelled, when Moses asked Him His name, skirting the issue by saying I am, Who is.
  So, I do well understand your pointing at labels as one source of the troubles, but, myself, want there to be no set-in-stone labels where
that is not called for and denies the fluidity of the human experience.  And, much further, where labels or categories are definable, I would
move to the fighting ground of why a particular group, category, or label, where it might apply, must be oppressed or provoke evil.
  Labels, for me, then, are a trouble ground when they are arbitrary, inflexible, and deny the human tendency to be multi-faceted.  They are
always going to be there.  In this thread, then, am not seeing any threat from our attempting to explore Ennis or even, each of us come to
a label or definition with which we are comfortable.  I like, on the one hand, the search for definition. On the other hand, like you, and most
of the others, I see trouble in fast and loose categorizing, and also know, we have to de-toxify any labels, as they'll never go away. They are
part of how we think.  Aintfoolin has done an excellent job of balancing there. that categories may well exist, and then saying, it's still OK.
That's where I am.  Gotta go get some food before the snow starts, and I hope my multiple posts aren't annoying the others.

[lancecowboy]

Once again, Tony, you have made your point very well.  IF we need to categorize people's sexuality, and IF we have to use labels, yours certainly make sense and Ennis certainly fits the Boxer's description.  I'm sure you find it hard to share some of the more personal parts of your own history, but they do help clarify your thoughts, and thus, help others to understand your very astute deductions.
      I do not intend to change the topic, but I just have to say ONE thing about labels -- something I have avoided commenting upon, but just can't keep my mouth shut any longer.  You touched upon this when you discussed the future which will further and further delineate everyone by narrowing all the definitions.  Historically, it is labels that have ruled the day: one drop of Jewish blood got you the concentration camp and death; one drop of Negroid blood got you enslaved; one drop of holy water saved your soul while everyone went to hell, etc.  As horrific as these things were, they were real and those who subscribed to them were the real monsters on this earth.  Can a label ever be a good thing?  Perhaps when stratefying species or classifying blood types, etc.  But labels that serve to box in certain individuals remain as deadly today as they ever were, and they frighten me in a way nothing else can.  I know some people feel the need to, in their own mind, at least, pinpoint Ennis's sexuality for once and for all, but I wonder why there is that need? What makes human beings think they need to know everything and have the right to injure others in their search?  Oh, well, just another rant!

Rant away, lamusica, and I agree with you 100%. However, I state further that it is not the categorization of reality that is the problem, but the wrongful application of generalization to the specific individual, which creates misery and injustice, as you so poignantly pointed out.

The generalization of the boxer type is to go from the specific to the generic, in order to understand the similarities between the individuals. Not necessarily to group them together in a category, but to indicate that there is some kind of correlation of these traits. The problem as I indicated in an earlier post, is the apply this generalization incorrectly to an individual, blindly assuming that it can go in the other direction. Unfortunately, most generalizations are not bidirectional. To define an individual as belong to a specific category requires more stringent and rigorous definitions that usually are not possible, as we have seen.

Generalization is a powerful tool of cognition that allowed humans to evolve. Just like other powerful tools, we have not learned the lessons of the past, and sometimes misuse them terribly.

Just my two bits of jargons.

[lancecowboy]

Hi, Tony, I hope the snowstorm will pass okay without causing power interruptions. I will miss your posts otherwise. My response to your excellent comments are below.

   Oh, gosh-am having trouble keeping myself from multiple-posting.  We're due a snowstorm here in Norfolk, this evening, and it's got me jittery,
in case it's real bad and the power goes out.
   Lamusica, back to labels.  Whether we believe in the Old Testament or not, it is interesting that the Lord had the animals brought before
Adam for him to name, or, if you will, label.  This spoke to the freedom he granted Adam, but also shows that we have an inherent need to
classify, or label.  The same Lord refused, Himself, to be labelled, when Moses asked Him His name, skirting the issue by saying I am, Who is.
  So, I do well understand your pointing at labels as one source of the troubles, but, myself, want there to be no set-in-stone labels where
that is not called for and denies the fluidity of the human experience.  And, much further, where labels or categories are definable, I would
move to the fighting ground of why a particular group, category, or label, where it might apply, must be oppressed or provoke evil.
  Labels, for me, then, are a trouble ground when they are arbitrary, inflexible, and deny the human tendency to be multi-faceted.  They are
always going to be there.  In this thread, then, am not seeing any threat from our attempting to explore Ennis or even, each of us come to
a label or definition with which we are comfortable.  I like, on the one hand, the search for definition. On the other hand, like you, and most
of the others, I see trouble in fast and loose categorizing, and also know, we have to de-toxify any labels, as they'll never go away. They are
part of how we think.  Aintfoolin has done an excellent job of balancing there. that categories may well exist, and then saying, it's still OK.
That's where I am.  Gotta go get some food before the snow starts, and I hope my multiple posts aren't annoying the others.

I agree with you about the difference between labels and definitions, in terms of their flexibility and changeability. Definitions, like scientific proofs, are work in progress, tools to gain better understanding of what is real. Labels, when inflexible and unchangeable, are mere excuses to tagged preconceived notions of what one believes, and project that onto the world.

You raised a good point that labels need to be de-toxified. And gay, queer, what have you, is certainly one label that has been detoxed by the likes of Will and Grace, and other popular media that projects a less stereotyped, and more balanced image of gay men. Unfortunately, a new gay stereotype is in the process of being created which is equally damaging to young gay psyche. Being gay doesn't give one extra power in design and color, or what have you. It is simply another facet of the human experience, like preferring blonds over brunettes, or strawberry over vanilla. Someday, they may find the genetic definition of these traits, or not, but until then, to detoxify them, these labels need to be re-defined with neutral meaning that has zero connotation that are not true. It is a tall order, but I think Brokeback Mountain has achieved a large measure of that by showing a love that transcends gay or straight. It simply is.

[lancecowboy]

     Lance, I knew you would come through for me, accept the information as reasonable enough, and add in some useful observations.  And I am very sorry for your lost love.  In my case, I miss the Boxers....as friends, as I have a strong male tribal need for friendship with other males without reference to sex.
   Lamusica, am so very gratified that you, too, see the eventual problem of our being ever more pegged by scientific tests that are emerging. You made reference to those extreme times in history, when just one part of oneself being related to a group being battered or killed, made you subject to those same extremes.  There is an historic battle, ongoing, to find out why we can, as human beings, be so oppressive on a massive scale.  And the humanities, in college, are where we are lagging.  Maybe because they can't find the courage to study the grotesque.  We need
to know WHY the prison guards at Auschwitz went home to their wives and felt sorry...for THEMSELVES!!!!  We've got to learn the equations created by the human mind that can allow this, and then---disrupt them.
  Many abusive people have a hidden equation that THEY are the victim.  Disrupt that, and their ability to justify causing pain is undermined. I'm interested, Lamusica, more than you can ever know, in finding out the why. Until then, we have to do as you do, and as the film BBM does,
ask questions and promote tolerance, and resist co-operating with the uglies of the world.
  But the matter of labels....I do leave that to be settled by the rest of you.  Just know that the goodness of your heart is a joy to me.

Tony, thank you for your understanding and caring. This discussion about "boxers" made me realize another reason why I am affected, and identified with Ennis so much. But that's another thread/topic.

We can start a new topic to discuss the horror of the past, specifically the nature of evil, which is the only word that describes the concentration camps, and slavery etc. As for the prison guards you mentioned, I believe the movie Nuremberg Trials had a good answer. It was the lack of empathy. Evil deeds are done by those who have no empathy for their victims, and as you said, often justified their deeds by claiming to be the victim. Furthermore, they justify their lack of empathy by demonizing their victims, claiming they are subhuman, bad, indeed evil. It is a fine line to label someone as evil, and to identify the acts, the consequences of someone who had done evil deeds as evil. Judge a tree by its fruits.

Thanks again for always raising great points for discussion.

[lamusica]

Tony, Lance-- I realize a true mark of human intelligence is to accurately categorize and define our surroundings -- to constantly hone in closer and closer to the defining essence that captures the difference between one thing and another. (Thus the Miller's Analogy Test many of us have taken somewhere along the way.)  I have no trouble with insisting on the pinpointed definition of everything, so long as those definitions do not LIMIT the thing defined, thus harming it in some way. I really have no trouble with brokies trying to define Ennis's sexuality because I know HERE it will make no difference.  HERE no one will judge, shun, hate, etc.  But, in the world at large, that is not true.  The labelization of anything is potentially damaging,IMHO.  As I said earlier, of course we have to categorize what is around us in order to understand the universe and our place in it.  But we have to be eternally vigilant to never let these labels put anyone into a situation where he is made to appear LESS.
        Lance, your idea about a thread on the nature of evil is a good one!

[lancecowboy]

Tony, Lance-- I realize a true mark of human intelligence is to accurately categorize and define our surroundings -- to constantly hone in closer and closer to the defining essence that captures the difference between one thing and another. (Thus the Miller's Analogy Test many of us have taken somewhere along the way.)  I have no trouble with insisting on the pinpointed definition of everything, so long as those definitions do not LIMIT the thing defined, thus harming it in some way. I really have no trouble with brokies trying to define Ennis's sexuality because I know HERE it will make no difference.  HERE no one will judge, shun, hate, etc.  But, in the world at large, that is not true.  The labelization of anything is potentially damaging,IMHO.  As I said earlier, of course we have to categorize what is around us in order to understand the universe and our place in it.  But we have to be eternally vigilant to never let these labels put anyone into a situation where he is made to appear LESS.
        Lance, your idea about a thread on the nature of evil is a good one!

  Brava! I can't agree with you more. 

And I am always grateful that here, in this valley of peace and respite, we can respect each other's opinions, nurture each other's defenses against the hard cold world outside, and always remain friends, without the need to say out loud, what is unspoken, the love that we share.

 

PS I will follow other's lead to start the new thread on the nature of evil. Scott Peck wrote a very good book on that subject, People of the Lie. I am a little overly tired nowadays. That's another heavy topic perhaps too much for me to bear. I am going to lurk a bit (as if that's possible for me  )

[lancecowboy]

Having been roused into this discussion in depth, I dug through some of the posts from the beginning (no not all, just a sampling) to get an idea of what has already been discussed.

I come across this gem from dalemidex that bears reposting:

I'll agree with Christie and tpe on that -- it does seem to bring out strong reactions.  I base that on various on-board and off-board conversations I've been part of where any notion of Ennis being gay -- or not gay -- has launched some sharp debate.

Why is this?

I do think some people just enjoy a raucous debate, and this is the perfect topic for BBM'ers.  Strong arguments can be made both ways, and it's a central point of the story.   So the ground is fertile.

A second reason is in the way one defines "gay".  To some people, when they speak of Ennis as "gay" they are speaking of Ennis' having a core desire of intimacy primarily directed toward  men.  Perhaps this was stunted greatly by internal homophobia, confusion and denial, but nevertheless they see it as there.  Hence Ennis is gay.  Others see the word "gay" as a more involved, complex tag that includes much more than that,  including a sense of identity, a particular sensibility, even a  way of life.  Hence Ennis was a million miles away from this definition of "gay".  This difference has been behind more than one "was Ennis gay?" debate.  And clearly if you think of "gay" as the second, it is probably frustrating to see so many people using "gay" to describe our boy.

Finally I do think there are deeper undercurrents that influence some people to one degree or another.  From some Ennis-is-gay people I've occasionally gotten the vibe that it is important to them for Ennis to be gay.  Having someone so conventionally masculine "on their team" is an attractive aspect to the story.  Making Ennis straight lessens the "gay" of this ground-breaking gay love story.  Kind of like finding out that the beloved Asian detective Charlie Chan wasn't even played by an Asian actor.  A possible, deeper subcontext could be that gay Ennis soothes self-doubts that gay men have about their own masculinity.

For those on the "Ennis is straight" side I've sometimes sensed strong notions that making Ennis gay cheapens the story.  That a straight Ennis is important to validate the incredible power of love overwhelming even innate sexual orientation. If Ennis and Jack are just a couple of gay guys, it's just another love story with obstacles.  I knew someone who even felt it cheapened the power love itself (as shown in the story)  if they were both gay.  (He did not imply or believe that gay love is less than straight love, but that Ennis being straight added a critical dimension to the story.)  A  deeper subcontext could be that straight Ennis appeals to the notion that the power of pure love can make a straight man fall in love with a gay man.

No, I'm not saying that these are the true motivations behind people on the two sides of the argument.  But as the issue has come up in debate over the past month, I do think some of the heat on this topic came from these competing ideas, each with its own attraction.

For the record, I do NOT believe Ennis is gay or straight.

I believe Ennis is a unique individual with a unique and troubled past who found love and completion in a gay man named Jack, who is also a unique individual with unique and troubled past.

It reminds me of the Star Trek The Next Generation episode, named appropriately enough, the Tin Man. About a trouble undisciplined supersensitive telepath from Betazoid, who found peace and companionship in a sentient spaceship that has traveled for millennium searching for a pilot, a telepathic pilot. The two completed each other.

Ennis and Jack were soul mates, not gay, not straight, just plain loving souls.

[babytammy7]

For the record, I do NOT believe Ennis is gay or straight.

I believe Ennis is a unique individual with a unique and troubled past who found love and completion in a gay man named Jack, who is also a unique individual with unique and troubled past.

Ennis and Jack were soul mates, not gay, not straight, just plain loving souls.

Andrew (  (  (  (  (

BTW Dalemidex post was amazing and so right!!!

[manhattangirl]

I've read all these wonderful post, but I still wonder about Ennis's sexuality,all that is written makes sense, but still I can't help but feel with Ennis and slow realization of his love for Jack, how he eliminates the women in his life, the one's that want him, and try to break through that hard interior which only Jack seems to. 

Ennis had no intimate connection to Alma, and Cassie seem unable to temper his thoughts or need for Jack. 

It also seems to me, and this just my opinion is that we almost make Ennis some supernatural sexless being, figure of myths and not the fragile human being he was, caught between his needs and his fears. 

Ennis was indeed a unique human being who found himself through another unique human being, they were gay, and in love.  Why is this so hard to even comprehend that their love, is a love story, in itself, and like with many of great love stories, a sense of joy and tragedy.

This just a thought of mine, and sorry if I upset anyone.