The true reason

[Momof2]

As for Ennis and Jack …. I think their love for each other is realistically portrayed (as much as can be in a work of fiction). What I am saying is that, yes, they have great passion for each other. And, yes, their sexual intimacy was passionate and intense throughout their entire relationship.  Beyond the sex, however, is a deep love for each other that could not be diminished. As I said earlier, BBM does not give an idealized portrayal of love. It shows the good and the bad, the happy and the painful sides to a relationship. Maybe that is why this film has touched the hearts of so many. It is their longing for each other and their struggles that make their relationship ring true.

[/quote]

I agree.  It is not your typical love story.  Besides the fact that it is about two men.  It shows the love that most of us experience.  There is no perfect relationship.  I do not necessarily believe love mellows over time, I just think it becomes a different kind of love.  My husband and I have been married 10 years and dated 5 befor that.  Do we have the same passion or love as in the first year we dated.  No.  But our love is deeper and stronger.  Our first few years it was more about the physical side of love.  Now it is a deep love that is better than in the beginning.  Just because you do not see your love everyday does not mean your love grows mellow.  I do not think that the sex would have kept them together on and off for 20 years.  They would have had Brokeback and it would have ended there.  At the least after the divorce Jack would not have kept coming back if it were sex.  He proved that he went to Mexico for the sex he missed.  Only love can bind 2 people together that strong.  I am sure the sex was part of it, but you can be in love with someone and not have sex all the time.  As they grew older their "needs" changed.  They had to have been in deep love to have lasted as long as they did.  When Ennis colapses at the lake, it is not because of the physical side but the unbearable thought of them not being together.  When he grabbed Jack while on the ground that sealed it for me.  I knew then how deep he loved Jack and how when Jack rushed to his side unable to bear the hurt in Ennis's voice I knew then they their love was true. 

[serious crayons]

Man, this is getting complicated. I think we're all looking at this from slightly different angles, partly arguing semantics.

I'll admit I'm not a habitual consumer of either porn or erotica, so forgive me if I sound clueless. But I think erotica almost requires emotion. It calls to mind the old saying, "Your most powerful sexual organ is your brain."

My dictionary suggests that Chris is right, erotica is arty porn. Here's how it defines pornography: "the presentation of sexually explicit behavior, as in a photograph, intended to arouse sexual excitement. And here's erotica: "literature or art intending to arouse sexual desire" (emphasis mine). But good literature and art provoke an emotional response.

What I've seen of pornography I've found boring, primarily because it appears so lacking in emotional context. As far as I can tell, it's just people performing sex acts, and even when they're acts that I might enjoy doing myself, watching strangers do them doesn't interest me. Oh, I know there's often some skeleton of a story: it's a rich guy and his maid or whatever. But generally we don't really get to know the characters very well (again, from what I've seen).

I know even less about erotica (that is, art intended mainly to be sexually exciting). But I've always assumed it takes a more careful approach, draws you in, gets you involved in a story, makes you form opinions about the characters and so on. I'm still not a big fan, but I think this emotional factor would make it more interesting.

So could one use either term in regard to BBM? Well, I don't think you could call the movie porn by any stretch. And though it's certainly great art, its main intention isn't to be sexually exiciting, so technically it's not erotica either.

But I've described the movie as "erotic" many times (usually as part of a list of ways the movie is great, which would also include artistic, intellectual, emotional, political, literary, etc.) That's because, well, the love scenes are sexy. I realize not everybody feels that way. But from previous discussions here, I know a lot of people do. So I don't think it's disrespectful or cheapening or offensive to call it erotic unless you're saying that's the only reason, or the primary reason, for the movie's appeal. Which, obviously, I'm not. TS2, for example, is both sexy AND emotionally compelling (and artistic and beautiful etc. etc.).

When somebody coined the term "emotional erotica," though, they were talking about the LA Times piece about how women like seeing men express emotions onscreen (though that's not the only thing they love about it, nor is it only women who love that). I believe they were talking about a response that was emotional, not sexual.
Am I making any sense, or just muddling things even further?

As for Jack and Ennis' sex life. I don't really like using the story to explain the movie (or vise versa) but I've so often wished that the story line referring to "the brilliant charge of their infrequent couplings" had been depicted in the movie.

[nakymaton]

Umm, as the person who brought up the term "emotional erotica"... my tongue was very firmly in my cheek. Yes, Chris, I was definitely thinking of the people (1980's vintage feminists, in particular) who distinguished between "pornography" and "erotica" on the basis of artistic merit. So Meghan Daum joked about "emotional pornography" (I'm pretty sure the term was a joke, even if the point she was making wasn't); I joked about it being "art," and therefore "erotica."

But the point that Daum was making... I think that she was trying to get at the question of "why is this movie a turn-on for women?" Because, beyond all the movie's considerable artistic acheivements, ummm... it's really hot. The appeal is not entirely intellectual. And for women who may have read gay literature, or watched other gay-themed movies, or seen gay porn, and not been turned on... then the question becomes: why this movie?

I don't think Daum's explanation is perfect, and there are a lot of points where I would argue with her. But I've heard similar discussions about the "slash" phenomenon, and about what exactly about it appeals to women. Some of the arguments were similar to Daum's. (Others focused on comparing the phenomenon to straight male fantasies about lesbians, and maybe there's a point there, too. Though the comparison makes me feel really guilty, because I find Howard Stern's (etc) lesbian fantasies to be exploitative, and it bothers me to think that I'm being exploitative in my own way by being fascinated with BBM.)

[dly64]

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  In every attempt to picture the two of them actually living a life together openly, I get all bogged up, and that's because I don't think it would have ever worked out.  As Jack says, if you count up the times they had been together in almost twenty years, it barely is enough to get past that initial sexual excitement.  Please don't misunderstand me.  They may have had a deep and abiding love for one another, but, yes, over time, love does mellow, physically and emotionally, and changes dramatically, and I can't see them together for very long.  

I do not necessarily believe love mellows over time, I just think it becomes a different kind of love.  My husband and I have been married 10 years and dated 5 befor that.  Do we have the same passion or love as in the first year we dated.  No.  But our love is deeper and stronger.  Our first few years it was more about the physical side of love.  Now it is a deep love that is better than in the beginning.  Just because you do not see your love everyday does not mean your love grows mellow.  I do not think that the sex would have kept them together on and off for 20 years.  

Scott – I agree with Momof2 in regards to the point about love mellowing over time. There is a big difference between having a purely sexual relationship and having a loving relationship. I think Jack and Ennis exemplify the latter.

There is a joke about the amount of time a couple has sex in their first year together versus following years. The idea is that if you put a penny in the jar for every time you have sex within the first year, and then take a penny out every time you have sex in the proceeding years, the penny jar will never be empty. The point being (albeit a bit tongue and cheek) is that a lasting relationship is not solely based on sex.

There have been a lot of discussions regarding whether or not Ennis and Jack’s relationship was initially a sexual one. I am inclined to say no. Yes, they had great sex and they both enjoyed it. However, they had built up a friendship before they ever had sex. It is obvious by TS2 that their relationship was not only a physical one. As I like to say about a loving relationship …. They each had a “soft place to fall.”

Could have they made a life together? I think “yes.” Is that the romantic in me coming out? Probably. But, IMO, they could have made it work. They understood each other in a way that no one else could. Tragically, we will never know.

[jpwagoneer1964]

Scott – I agree with Momof2 in regards to the point about love mellowing over time. There is a big difference between having a purely sexual relationship and having a loving relationship. I think Jack and Ennis exemplify the latter.

 
  However, they had built up a friendship before they ever had sex. It is obvious by TS2 that their relationship was not only a physical one. As I like to say about a loving relationship …. They each had a “soft place to fall.”

Could have they made a life together? I think “yes.” Is that the romantic in me coming out? Probably. But, IMO, they could have made it work. They understood each other in a way that no one else could. Tragically, we will never know.

I agree, their compatibility was established in the frst days of their relationship.

[serious crayons]

And for women who may have read gay literature, or watched other gay-themed movies, or seen gay porn, and not been turned on... then the question becomes: why this movie?

I've never seen (erotic) gay literature, movies or porn, so I don't know how I'd react, but I've never felt especially drawn to them. I guess I just felt that, by definition, I would feel excluded. So I didn't expect to find BBM a turn on. I learned something new about myself, and I've sought an explanation. I don't think, for me, it's specifically about gay men having sex. I don't think I have any more interest in seeing other gay couples together than I did before (though I've learned not to make assumptions, even about myself!).

So why this movie? Maybe because the actors are so hot. Maybe because I know them to be straight in "real life." Maybe because the scenes are so well done, so beautifully filmed and acted. Maybe because their passion is so convincing and intense. Maybe because it's so emotionally engaging. Probably some combination of all those.

I did figure out one thing for sure. I had always assumed that when I found a straight love scene sexy, it was because I was identifying with the woman.  I assumed I would not find love scenes in BBM sexy because there'd be no one for me to identify with. What I discovered is, it's not a matter of identifying with one of the participants by gender. It's about finding at least one of the participants attractive; if I do, I can put myself in place of the other participant regardless of gender. (I assume that's what many gay people do when watching straight love stories?) And in BBM, you get two attractive participants for the price of one!

I've always rolled my eyes at the idea of men fantasizing about watching two women get it on. Now I feel kind of bad about that. But I do think that's often a different kind of thing. I think -- and this is completely wild speculation; I've never talked to any man about this, only seen it on TV -- that many men with this fantasy ultimately want the women to be doing it for the man's benefit. In other words, it's not about a lesbian couple, per se, it's about two women putting on a show for the purpose of arousing the guy (I think). That's probably not always be the case, but I believe that's how, for instance, Girls Gone Wild works.

If there are any straight men reading this who can be enlightening, please feel free to jump in!

[silkncense]

They may have had a deep and abiding love for one another, but, yes, over time, love does mellow, phsyically and emotionaly, and changes dramatically, and I can't see them togather for very long. 

So, then no relationship would ever succeed??  Their love & passion was clearly built on a foundation of friendship.  If the obstacle that prevented Ennis from accepting a full-time relationship was removed, you still don't see success?

[Aussie Chris]

Umm, as the person who brought up the term "emotional erotica"... my tongue was very firmly in my cheek. Yes, Chris, I was definitely thinking of the people (1980's vintage feminists, in particular) who distinguished between "pornography" and "erotica" on the basis of artistic merit. So Meghan Daum joked about "emotional pornography" (I'm pretty sure the term was a joke, even if the point she was making wasn't); I joked about it being "art," and therefore "erotica."

Ok Mel & Katherine, yes I get the tongue in the cheek, for the most part so is mine although I do have a problem with political correctness, especially when people actually buy into it when really it's little more than verbal diarrhoea!

But the point that Daum was making... I think that she was trying to get at the question of "why is this movie a turn-on for women?" Because, beyond all the movie's considerable artistic acheivements, ummm... it's really hot. The appeal is not entirely intellectual. And for women who may have read gay literature, or watched other gay-themed movies, or seen gay porn, and not been turned on... then the question becomes: why this movie?

I don't think Daum's explanation is perfect, and there are a lot of points where I would argue with her. But I've heard similar discussions about the "slash" phenomenon, and about what exactly about it appeals to women. Some of the arguments were similar to Daum's. (Others focused on comparing the phenomenon to straight male fantasies about lesbians, and maybe there's a point there, too. Though the comparison makes me feel really guilty, because I find Howard Stern's (etc) lesbian fantasies to be exploitative, and it bothers me to think that I'm being exploitative in my own way by being fascinated with BBM.)

These are reasonable questions, but I really think they are misplaced.  You see, simply asking "why women enjoy BBM when its central characters are gay men" more than implies a sexual (maybe even pornographic) motive for watching it.  And the comparison with the [straight] males' preoccupation with lesbians, which *is* exploitative by the way, only emphasises my point.  Basically I see these comparisons as cheapening everything about BBM, and I even go so far to say that proponents of this argument have no class at all.  (Yes my tongue is still in my cheek).

Ok, here's what I really think.  I think women's enjoyment of BBM is the same as mine (a gay man's).  It's not about the sex or the sexuality of the characters.  It's about the genuine and truthful depiction of the emotions.  Some of these emotions are beautiful and endearing while others are not, and that's good because it's the unflinching honesty that makes it possible to believe in them.  If we become aroused it's because we are responding to these emotions, not because we are being titillated by a simulation of sex.  To be honest, it's not even a particularly good simulation of sex in TS1, but it gets the job done as far as the story telling is concerned.  But the emotional power of BBM has no equal IMO.  I don't think there has ever been a film (or ever will be again) that has emotions with the impact of BBM.  Maybe that's because the need we have for them at this point in history is equally matched?  Those of us so deeply affected by BBM are also the ones that long for a world where all love, gay and straight, is celebrated equally and the fear of sexual oppression is just a historical curiosity?

To be continued...

[Momof2]

Aussie Chris I agree with you 100%. 

[serious crayons]

You see, simply asking "why women enjoy BBM when its central characters are gay men" more than implies a sexual (maybe even pornographic) motive for watching it.

In the LA Times piece, sex didn't come up at all. It was all about emotion. She didn't even refer to the love scenes specifically. Nor did she deny that other characteristics -- powerful story, etc. -- that are far more important. But those characteristics would presumably appeal to anybody who saw it. She simply discussed one of the movie's qualities -- men expressing deep emotion -- that women specifically might like. (Chris, if you're curious about the piece that triggered all this controversy, the link is in a post by me a page or two back.)

But maybe it's worth mentioning the elephant in the room: that, let's face it, if this board is any measure the fans of this movie are not exactly demographically representative, in terms of sexual orientation, of the population as a whole. I believe about half the members are women, some gay, and then there are lots of gay men. Do you notice any group conspicuously underrepresented? I'm not saying there are NO straight men; I know there are some. But from what I've observed (and I could be wrong; not everybody discusses their sexuality, of course) their numbers sure don't seem to match their proportion of the population.

That's not all about sex, of course. Many straight men are uncomfortable watching the sex scenes (i.e., homophobic). Gay men have many personal reasons to love the movie more than straight men might. But still. Not all straight men are homophobic, I would hope, so why is their number so miniscule? I bet the same couldn't be said about, say, Casablanca. Or even Titanic. Why would they be so immune to a powerful emotional story?

Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing that sexual attraction is the primary reason for loving the movie. But does it really cheapen it to include it among the many reasons?

If we become aroused it's because we are responding to these emotions, not because we are being titillated by a simulation of sex.  To be honest, it's not even a particularly good simulation of sex in TS1, but it gets the job done

This is getting so uncomfortably literal that it IS sounding a bit pornographic. Let's just put it this way: part of the function of love stories is to let viewers vicariously experience a great romantic love. And sex is part of the picture. That's why most love stories contain scenes of sex or at least kissing. It doesn't have to be out-and-out sex -- in the case of BBM, many people like or even prefer TS2 and the reunion scene. And the response is not entirely sexual; it's all mixed up with emotions. If the whole movie were nothing but variations on TS1 I bet a lot of BetterMost members wouldn't be here (if there even was a BetterMost). But part of its appeal is erotic. I don't think you have to deny that in order to respect the movie, any more than you have to deny sexual attraction in order to respect a person you love.

I'm kind of grasping for ways to describe this, Chris, because your post makes me wonder if you and I perceive the response to sex scenes differently. I'm not talking about people necessarily responding to it, um ... the way they would to pornography. It's much more about emotions than that.

    But the emotional power of BBM has no equal IMO.  I don't think there has ever been a film (or ever will be again) that has emotions with the impact of BBM.

I'd be surprised if anyone on this board would disagree with you here, Chris.