One Man Men

[serious crayons]

Agreed. Jack is very obviously a homosexual man who, in my opinion, is fairly in touch with that aspect of himself throughout the story.

Yeah. Either that, or Jack fell in love with Ennis pretty much the second his foot hit the pavement outside Aguirre's trailer. And then later, he fell in love with a Mexican prostitute.

[Brown Eyes]

Well, in some ancient cultures it was acceptable for married women to have affairs with other women but not with men, because then their childrens' paternity wouldn't be in doubt. Today, in most cultures, it has to do with power.

Plenty of people have expressed better than me why so many heterosexual men feel threatened by the idea of men having sexual attachments to other men. However, in the case of women the dominant group finds lesbian action a turn-on so it goes without saying that too much negativity about it would put members of that group in a bit of a bind. Or as the loser-protagonist in "Married With Children" put it: "There's nothing wrong with a woman having sex with another woman - as long as there's a man watching."

That's not to imply actual tolerance for lesbianism among homophobes. Two women here in Missouri were denied an application to be foster parents last year, and took it to court. The court ruled that the reasons for their being denied - their sexual orientation - were irrelevant to the welfare of the children and our homophobic State district attorney is still in a snit about that. The prejudice against lesbians is more subtle.

How fun to see this old thread revived! 

Well, I can't help myself from commenting a bit on this post.  As one of the few, long-term lesbian residents of BetterMost, it's interesting to see this issue come up a bit.  I guess all I want to add (and I'm sure a bit of this is implicit in what you wrote originally... I just feel like elaborating) is that there's a vast difference between straight male fantasies of woman-on-woman action (of the sort you mention, a la Married With Children and countless other pop culture references such as Howard Stern, etc. and porn, etc.) and the true threat/ fear that real and actual lesbianism brings out culturally... which is the fear of women being completely independent of men in terms of being self-sufficient in terms of supporting ourselves AND EVEN sexually (this is not to say that friendship with men, etc. aren't constantly factors in a gay woman's life).  This extreme independence flies in the face of so many cultural paradigms it's wonderful an almost funny.  This anxiety about what true lesbianism means seems to come out when people (some straight men, some straight women, etc.) act like they don't understand how two women can really have sex.  That, almost willful act of not-understanding reveals every aspect of cultural insecurity as far as I'm concerned.

[bbm_stitchbuffyfan]

I think Ennis opened up around Jack. That's what I gathered out of the first act of the movie, how Jack sort of reels Ennis out of his shell and they mutually feel comfortable around each other.

I think Ennis was too in love with Jack to really look at another man, or person, for that matter. It's blatant that Alma and Cassie didn't mean much romantically to him. I think Jack, when Ennis hurt him so badly, tried to ease the pain through other people but found it useless.

How Ennis is only attracted to Jack, only comes alive around Jack, speaks beautiful volumes about their relationship, I think.

[Penthesilea]

From Marge:
Well, in some ancient cultures it was acceptable for married women to have affairs with other women but not with men, because then their childrens' paternity wouldn't be in doubt. Today, in most cultures, it has to do with power.

Plenty of people have expressed better than me why so many heterosexual men feel threatened by the idea of men having sexual attachments to other men. However, in the case of women the dominant group finds lesbian action a turn-on so it goes without saying that too much negativity about it would put members of that group in a bit of a bind. Or as the loser-protagonist in "Married With Children" put it: "There's nothing wrong with a woman having sex with another woman - as long as there's a man watching."

There's another aspect to why love between two women is not as "threatening" as the love between two men. It has it's roots in the genreal historic disregard/disdain towards women. Until the age of enlightenment women were not regarded as full-fletched human beings. And the believe that women do not have a sexuality, are therefore not sexual beings, lasted even longer.
Remains of that believe are still around these days. They show for example in sentences like "Such a thing like lesbians do not exist; there are only women who didn't find the RIGHT man yet."(*arrrgh*) Or, even more scorning, "They just need to be f*cked really good and hard" ( *more arrrgh*)

So ironically the genreal disdain towards women led to less hatred towards lesbian women in comparison to gay men.

[moremojo]

So ironically the genreal disdain towards women led to less hatred towards lesbian women in comparison to gay men.

I think your analysis is spot-on, and it reminds me of how much of the homophobia directed towards gay men is often tinged with more than a touch of misogyny. It is a common misunderstanding, now receding but still fairly widespread, that gay men are men who are behaving like women, or who want to be women. The unspoken rebuke here is that these men are forsaking their God-given birthright and mimicking the position (in every sense of the word) of "lowly" women. People often don't articulate their homophobia in such plain terms, but I definitely think this is an element common in that prejudice. And this is one reason it saddens me to see women exhibit homophobia--they are aligning themselves, no doubt unwittingly, with the agents of their own oppression.

[Aussie Chris]

Gasp, it looks like I'm weeks behind in checking the important threads, appologies for my tardiness in replying, and with several specific nods in my direction and all, how terribly rude of me.

I agree with you Chris, because I almost had similar personal experience before.  If we want to use labels, then I'm 100% gay.  If we don't want to use labels, then I'm 100% attracted to men only, emotionally and physically.  But at one point in my life, I contemplated marrying a women just to please my parents and my conservative sub culture.  I believe Jack and Ennis were both "gay" by nature and "straight" by nurture, and were in a similar situation as I was.  They just took it a step further by marrying while I didn't.  The only thing that stopped me from marrying then was that I didn't want to ruin another person's life by eventually not loving her, and watching this movie reinforces that.

I'm glad you agree JT, where were you when I needed you in March?    This was a funny time, weird that it was just 6 months ago, seriously it feels like years have gone by.  I guess this was inevitable, after all we've really explored just about every nook and cranny of the film and the story, and so much water has passed under the bridge...

Did Jake really say that? If so, there's one more reason not to take comments made in interviews with the stars/director/screenwriters/etc. as gospel. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. (But who knows in what context he might have said that, or whether it was misinterpreted by the interviewer or what. Again, reason not to take interviews as gospel.)

Unfortunately yes Katherine and this bothered me for quite a while, but I've forgiven him his lapse of judgement.  Actually I've come to believe that both Jack and Heath were "advised" to take the straight line during promotional interviews.  Just about all advertising and promotional spots tried to lessen, disguise, or flat-out contradict the gay themes in the story.  It was a confusing time for me and I found myself actually doubting what the story was about.  If it wasn't for our discussions here I might have been convinced that it was about two straight men that just happened to fall in love.  And we though excessive political correctness was something to worry about, but I worry a lot more about the evils of spin.

Plenty of people have expressed better than me why so many heterosexual men feel threatened by the idea of men having sexual attachments to other men. However, in the case of women the dominant group finds lesbian action a turn-on so it goes without saying that too much negativity about it would put members of that group in a bit of a bind. Or as the loser-protagonist in "Married With Children" put it: "There's nothing wrong with a woman having sex with another woman - as long as there's a man watching."

Hi there Marge_Innavera, so tell me, who is this dominant group?  Do you mean straight men?  Can they really be considered dominant?  Strange, I always saw them as victims of their own narrow minds.

That's not to imply actual tolerance for lesbianism among homophobes. Two women here in Missouri were denied an application to be foster parents last year, and took it to court. The court ruled that the reasons for their being denied - their sexual orientation - were irrelevant to the welfare of the children and our homophobic State district attorney is still in a snit about that. The prejudice against lesbians is more subtle.

Is this really an example of intollerence, or a victory of equality?  I think in some ways lesbians enjoy more acceptance than gay men.  I'm happy to be argued with, but I ask you, would the adoption outcome above been the same if it were two men???

Amanda?  What do you think?

[serious crayons]

I'm happy to be argued with, but I ask you, would the adoption outcome above been the same if it were two men???

Not to jump ahead of Amanda, or anyone else who might be prepared to answer this question, but I'd like to throw in the fact that there would be an additional prejudice at work in the two-men situation: the idea that men aren't "naturally" as well equipped to care for children as women are.

Though of course gay couples of both genders adopt kids pretty frequently, right? So I guess I don't fully understand why sexual orientation was an obstacle in Missouri.

[Aussie Chris]

So I guess I don't fully understand why sexual orientation was an obstacle in Missouri.

That's pretty much what I was thinking also Katherine.  It's depressing to think that even if we manage to scrape together some equality between the sexes and the sexual orientations, the minute we turm our backs the dickheads try to put things back the way they were.  I mean, really!  You can just see the person that tried to deny the adoption in the first place saying: "What? Who me? They never. Well no one told me".

[Jeff Wrangler]

And the believe that women do not have a sexuality, are therefore not sexual beings, lasted even longer.

Except, of course, and maybe at the same time, in Judeo-Christian tradition, women were regarded as sexual beings, and they were felt to be unable to control their sexuality (as if men could control theirs--Ha!), and their sexuality was regarded as evil and necessary to be controlled by outside forces (male forces).

It's the whole "Eve corrupted Adam" business.

[moremojo]

Except, of course, and maybe at the same time, in Judeo-Christian tradition, women were regarded as sexual beings, and they were felt to be unable to control their sexuality (as if men could control theirs--Ha!), and their sexuality was regarded as evil and necessary to be controlled by outside forces (male forces).

It's the whole "Eve corrupted Adam" business.

Women's sexuality has historically received much emphasis in classical Indian civilization. Literature in both the Hindu and Buddhist traditions highlight women as sexual beings, sometimes presenting them as voracious almost to the point of parody. Buddhism, with its emphasis on detachment, often presents this motif in a negative light. But whether seen positively or negatively, sexuality is seen as natural, for both sexes--an interesting counterpoint to the often schizoid attitudes towards sexuality we have inherited in the West.