My objection to the expression "emotional erotica/pornography" was because I see it as senonomous to saying "porn for women", and that infers that BBM is for women (and/or gay men). Regardless of where the toungue is placed, I don't like the idea of branding BBM as being anything for any one particular demographic. And as far as I am concerned, using the word pornography or erotica in the artical means that we *are* talking about sex. Putting "emotional" in front of it doesn't change that.
Well I agree, to some extent, with the stereotype part. But not with the sex part. Chris, really, the article IS all about emotions. Sex, aside from the tongue-in-cheek use of the word pornography, is a non-issue in it. Here, for the record, is the piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum7jan07,0,3054088.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
And here's a recap of her main point:
So how has this art-house film, a "gay movie" whose target audience is ostensibly the small percentage of the population that identifies as homosexual, managed to insinuate itself into the hearts and cocktail-party conversations of so many heteros? It's that 51% of the population known as women, stupid!
... For all their monosyllabism, Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis (Heath Ledger) are fonts of emotion. Sure, they're prone to the usual male-pattern drinking, fighting and marrying women without knowing quite what they're doing, but when it comes to their love for each other, their hearts aren't just on their sleeves, they're pinned to their foreheads.
And guess what? Chicks dig it.
You know, first I spent about 10 posts defending the article to Barb, and now I'm in the middle of defending it to you, Chris, and I just reread it again and realize it's not
that good. I first read it in January, thought she made an interesting point, one that I personally can identify with, and bookmarked it. But it's not the most profound thing I ever read about the movie. It's probably not worth all the effort I am making on its behalf. However, I still don't disagree with its premise.
As for stereotyping, you're right. It's too bad BBM's demographics are so skewed. (Well, realistically they're always going to be a little skewed, if only because gay people have particular reasons to really appreciate the movie -- and I'm not talking about sexuality here -- that most straight people don't share, at least not on as personal a level.) But it is too bad there aren't more straight men among our number. Or, for that matter, in the theaters where it played. (Maybe more straight men are seeing it in the privacy of their living rooms, but even that is kind of stupid.)
Is gay different to being straight? Do men really want different things to women? Physical Sex versus Emotional Fulfillment? Marriage versus Civil Union? We are just as guilty for the ignorance of those that oppress us because we propogate the stereotypes.
Well, yes, frankly I do think those things are different. I don't think it is bigotry or even stereotyping to recognize that different people have different issues, and sexuality, gender, nationality, religion, race, etc. influence those differences. To ignore those is to ignore part of what makes humans interesting. It's just that we have to accept and try to understand each others' differences, I think.
