Hi Jack, I don't think I was trying to suggest that you were trying to push your point of view.
Aussie Chris, I didn't interpret it that way at all. I was just restating that it is the discussion, of all points of view, which I feel is important, not trying to change anyone's ideas, but hopefully in the process of discussing, folks will change or enlarge upon their own ideas of sexual orientation themselves as they think about, clarify, and express their point.
One thing that has puzzled me about your posts is the fact that on one hand you seem to be saying that Jack and Ennis are really heterosexual and you use specific scenes in the film to justify this (snip)You also seem to want to reduce their homosexual relationship to something akin to the strong bond that childhood friends might experience (snip) But in your earlier post you also close by challenging the use of labels in any form (snip) I'm confused about whether you do or do not want to apply a label to Jack & Ennis, and if so which one. Or if you don't want to use a label, then how is one supposed to describe their nature?
Chris, you slightly miss my point, or I did not clearly express it. I DO feel that people tend to apply labels unthinkingly, only motivated by a shorthand simplistic means of distinguishing "others" from themselves. For a person to SELF-identify as anything s/he wants is fine. And for another to THINK about and consider some whole individual and then come to some conclusion (and label if appropriate) is also fine.
It's the automatic labeling based soley on some single element that I object to and which is so common.
I enjoy the discussion because I enjoy having to think about what I mean when I say Jack is BI-sexual and Ennis is innately heterosexually oriented. But these two persons came together, and due to the circumstances of that meeting of souls, each coming from his own past, they bonded, they fell in love, and from that Person to Person love there also grew a physical relationship which was about expressing love, one for the other. Being both males, then of course the RELATIONSHIP was a homosexual relationship, but it does not have to follow then that the two people WERE homosexuals in denial. They were two people in a relationship.
So many people say: man has sex with man then HE IS homosexual, and if he doesn't embrace that identity then he is in denial.
But even in the face of that, to reverse it: man has sex with woman, then he is heterosexual and if he doesn't embrace that then he must be in denial of his heterosexuality. So "gay" man has sex with women? Discounted as cause for any explanation of his identity, still "gay".....and all the stories of REPRESSED individuals come out in support of that.
Woman has sex with woman, that by definiition is homosexual activity, but rarely will people AUTOMATICALLY say that one or the other woman is homosexual and unless she embrace that identity she is living in denial. No! Woman having sex with woman is somehow acceptable
heterosexual activity. She just wanted to explore...just wanted a little variety...just wanted some kicks...whatever.
But no man can ever have sex with another man, without incuring either the label of outright Homosexual, or Repressed Homosexual, or Closeted Homosexual.
And in general too, if a Woman self-identifies as BI-sexual....she is cool, is bohemian, is intriguing.....etc.
If a man self-identifies as BI-sexual....he is deluding himself...can't accept his homosexuality...is in denial...etc.
I am simplifying in stating the cases, but perhaps you get my point in wanting to have a discussion on sexual orientation in general, and Jack and Ennis's in particular.
Also, it is good to point out that the word "gay" has quite a lot of implied baggage. Likewise the word "homosexual" has implied baggage. Do they mean the same thing? NO! Do most people use them AS IF THEY MEANT THE SAME? YES!
Jack and Ennis were definitely NOT gay. Gayness as we think of it, did not really exist in 1963. Were Jack and Ennis homosexual? I say no, but others say yes.
Gay implies a whole structured society, and social identity. Homosexual implies a sexual orientation, and or a sexual behaviour.
Can a person be a homosexual and NOT be gay? Yes.
Can a person be "gay" and not be a homosexual? Theoretically yes, practically no. (There is a slang term to describe a heterosexually oriented woman, ie, a woman sexually attracted to a man's body, but who rarely or never dates heterosexual men, and who instead surrounds herself with male homosexuals, and who sometimes falls in love with male homosexuals......that woman is "gay" in the sense I mean and stated above. Her "gayness" is NOT about her sexuality so much as it is about her cultural and societal constructs.)
When folks self-identify as "gay" they are identifying with a whole lot of NON-sexual things. A community, a cause, a life-style (in the truest sense of that word).
There are homosexuals who are neither repressed/closeted, nor "out/gay", but simply keep that part of their being, their sexuality to themselves and do not see it as lense through which everything else in their life must be viewed. They may have a special friend, a lover in the true sense of that word, for whom they care deeply, or they may choose to not be sexual, or they may choose to only have casual encounters ("go to Mexico"). The rest of their life is as ordinary as their neighbors, their siblings, their coworkers.
This too is part of why I feel it is good to have these discussions. We short change this last group. We condemn them as repressed if they don't shout out their sexual orientation and become "gay" culturally.
To clarify, I am not giving any value judgements, I am simply trying to make the point that the label "gay" has lots of implications which do not fit all homosexuals, and just because that label does not fit some homosexual individuals does not mean THE INDIVIDUALS are in denial or wrong, it means the LABEL is wrong and limititing.
For now....
Jack in Maine