One Man Men

[Jack_ME]

So in my opinion, there is little point in trying to convince anyone of a particular point of view, because I don't think there's a single right answer.

Yes but Aussie Chris, it's NOT about trying to convince anyone of anything, it's about HAVING the discussion.

And hopefully in the process provoking an examination and reevaluation of how one often simply labels someone else, without really having done the analytical thinking oneself to see whether the label is truly appropriate for that other person.

In my mind, it is the fact that they were in love and slept together far outweighs the fact that they were also married and had children.

We don't have a whole lot to go one, but what about the love that Ennis had for Alma? Their early time together depicted by the sledding scene, and the friendly wrestling, and then later at the Drive In movie seems to speak of being in love. As I say it's not a lot to go on, but there is no reason to assume that Ennis DIDN'T love Alma, and they certainly slept together.

As for Jack and Lureen, we have even less to go on, but we do have two scenes that might indicate that. At the birth of their son, Jack is naturally excited about that in and of itself, but his doorway look could certainly indicate a love for Lureen, and their son.

Later in the Thanksgiving scene, of course that scene in the end has most to do with Jack standing up to LD, but even as he is bringing in the dinner, and later jousting for control of the TV, his actions are a concern for Lureen and her wishes. She is the one who initially wants/or threatens the TV off, and Jack reacts to that in support. That inital action was no intended confrontaion with LD. It was he who butted in. And Lureen's expression throughout that scene reflects that she is proud and pleased with Jack's actions. That certainlly indicated to me that she loved him and I think we could use it to say he loved her.

But to be fair, I will also acknowledge that in what Jack expressed to Ennis, he made clear he could quite easily, and likely would, choose Ennis over Lureen, if he had that option.

The thing that most makes me see Ennis as gay is the fact that he becomes less and less capable of maintaining his straight life as the film progresses. 

To be fair I think you have to say that Ennis becomes less and less capable of maintaining his life PERIOD....not his "straight" life.

The stress of loving someone, having only brief shared times, and then being alone and lonely most of the other time is very painful and hard on his emotional well being. It isn't about his "straight" (sexual) life. In the last physical encounter we see between Ennis and Alma, we see tha Alma has become bitter and even mean. She has insulted him, if not by untruths, then by the manner she presented that. When we move to the very next scene, the divorce scene, we see a very upset, and crying Ennis at being divorced. We do not see someone relieved to be out of the marriage. I have no doubt that it was Alma's bitterness that had at least equal weight with Ennis's sadness at being separated from Jack which entered into the ultimate decision to divorce. We don't know if Alma and Monroe were an item prior to her divorce, and have no reason to assume that, but also it can't be denied that working together, she probably knew of his feelings and considered how he could support her and her children. Only to say that Alma's attitude is likely what drove that couple to divorce, NOT Ennis's love of Jack, or his "repressed" homosexuality.


 

He fulfils his conjugal duties, although we see that his desires are not entirely "missionary" in nature.  But after the reunion and the affair begins, Ennis' physical relationship with Alma deteriorates to the point that he would rather leave her alone if she didn't want more kids. 

We see two sexual encounters between Alma and Ennis. And we know of two others, as they have two children. It is obvious that Ennis and Alma engaged in "missionary" copulation....since they have two children. Also, in the second sexual encounter we see, Alma puts a halt to it as she is concerned about their ability to support more children, ie, Ennis was either in or about to be in a child producing possible situation.

In the first encounter we see, he does flip Alma over and there is an associative implication made but it doesn't have to say anything about Ennis's orientation, only about his previous experience.


(still regarding Jack)

The only time that I think bisexual is a relevant title is when an individual chooses to have both male and female lovers as a conscious and informed choice, interchanging the genders also by choice. 

This was my point in referencing the female experiences we know of from the film. Certainly, in real life, a person can go to a benefit dance and ask someone to dance for no other reason than to be socialble. But this is a movie, and in a movie everything we see has been chosen by the director so as to tell the story. There was no reason to have Jack ask LaShawn to dance. Unless it was to show that Jack DID have an interest in women. If that whole scene was siimply to present the Randall/Jack bench encounter, that could have been done without the dancing. LaShawn had already been a non-stop chatterer, and it was clear where they were located.

And then Jack's own admission to Ennis of having the affair with the rancher's wife.

In my mind, two men who are in love means that they're gay. 

That seems pretty broad, and seems to discount or re-classify, all the real life-life bonded relationships we know exist betwen men, as between war buddies, or between college chums, or between childhood friends maintained into adulthood, to name three. These relationships have real love, though they may not have sexual activity. And to make the distinction of love vs. in love, surely in many of these relationships there was a period when it was "in love"although never expressed in those words, and the relationship never moved into the realm of physical intimacy.


As you said in the beginning of your reply post, I DO enjoy thinking about and discussing the subject of sexual orientation in general, and our pre-conceived notions of that, and of the film BBM characters' orientation.

And it is so true that part of what makes BBM such a masterpiece of film, is that the film can stand up to this extensive scrutiny and analysis. I find that quite amazing, but I think it is why this film has had such an impact on so many folks. As we know it is not only "gay" men who admire and are fascinated by this film. It's people of all walks and thoughts. And that's great.


Thanks again for having taken the time to respond, Aussie Chris. I appreciate the discussion.

Jack in Maine

[Aussie Chris]

Hi Jack, I don't think I was trying to suggest that you were trying to push your point of view.  This was an acknowledgement not an accusation.  It's quite a delicate proposition really, discussing a subject with people who feel very strongly about it.  But it's also quite interesting, and I'm always game!

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 (eg sledding and babies).  You also seem to want to reduce their homosexual relationship to something akin to the strong bond that childhood friends might experience (and if so I strongly disagree with this).  But in your earlier post you also close by challenging the use of labels in any form in the paragraph that starts: "We humans, here in the United States especially, want to force everyone under one label or another".  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?  This is actually a leading question because I also think that labels over-simplify things.

When I think about the characters of Jack and Ennis I do not think about scene specific situations one way or the other.  I don't use the "heterosexual scenes" to justify that they are straight any more than the "homosexual scenes" to justify that they are gay or bisexual.  Basically I imagine that they were gay but so determined to be "straight" that they successfully manage to have sexual relationships with their wives and father children.  I may be wrong, this just works for me.  If for a moment we consider that they were gay and in denial, in my opinion this could explain how and why their heterosexual relationships started and continued for as long as they did.  They were simply determined to present that side of themselves, only a facade, to the world.  At the opposite end of the scale, the idea that they were really heterosexual and any homosexual tendencies were simply because of camaraderie seems a little weak to me.  Nevertheless, I have no problem with agreeing with you that Ennis sincerely loved Alma and Jack loved Lureen.

Ok, so do I think that what I have written here makes me more right?  Definitely not.  It is simply the perception I have of the characters based on my own life experience.  I for one have a number of straight-male friends for whom I enjoy a wonderfully close relationship with, which even includes hugs and the occasional kiss hello/goodbye.  But at no time have I ever thought that these relationships were anything more than platonic, and they are nothing less than straight.  My friends are a rare breed of heterosexuals that are completely unafraid of gays, and are mature enough to be able to show affection to other men without worrying if that makes them a little bit gay, or even if it did it doesn't mean they are going to have sex with them.  But Jack and Ennis are not of this rare breed.  They shared a romantic attraction with each other that consumes their lives from that moment on.  Whether you want to say this makes them more bisexual is more about your definition of "bisexual", which is true if you only consider the fact that they slept with men and women.  But I don't think that's how they should be defined as bisexual because of how they felt emotionally.  It occurs to me that they would have been happier being gay if it weren't for the time, society, and their own prejudices.  Everything else is circumstance.

Just my humble opinion of course... 

[Suffused]

IMHO

It's called The Closet

Jack and Ennis were married as a survival technique.  Partly out of ignorance of the possibility that they could be gay and partly out of just doing what they were taught to do...no such thing as gay role models.

I like how Aussie Chris calls them emotionally gay.  Implying they were Intelectually straight...to survive, I assume.

[JCinNYC2006]

I haven't posted much lately because I don't have enough time, but I'm loving the exchange going on here.  I find sexual orientation to be so complex because it involves a physical/sexual reaction and an emotional reaction.  All these social and cultural messages influence how comfortable we feel acting on these impulses, which aren't necessarily fixed, as well as even having the feelings themselves. 

Then on top of that comes sexual identity, that 'label' we take on (or don't), like gay, straight, bisexual, and whatever other variations have come down the pike.  Sexual identity doesn't always reflect either orientation or behavior, hence married heterosexual men who get involved with other men, or that cool British show "Bob and Rose" about a gay man who falls in love with a straight woman.  But sexual identity is often used interchangeably with sexual orientation. 

Like I would say that my orientation is homosexual, because my physical and emotional attraction is towards men.  But I would also say that I identify as gay, because I've chosen to take on that identity as a way to organize my sexuality for myself and that's how I want to present to the world.  (I shudder at the thought of actually being introduced as "my homosexual uncle" or something.)

It's not always so simple that identity and orientation reflect each other so well, either for us currently (Jim McGreevey anyone?) or for guys from Jack and Ennis' time.  So I often find questions of whether Jack and Ennis are really gay to be moot because, as has been mentioned in plenty of threads here and on other boards, to conceive of themselves that way, as "queer", wasn't an option.  They were aware of the fact that men could be with men, but their, or at least Ennis', view of that was extremely narrow - "I don’t want a be like them guys you see around sometimes. And I don’t want a be dead."

I get why there's debate on whether they're gay or not.  But "gay" is a relatively modern construct that doesn't apply very well.  I find it too simplistic when there's speculation about whether Lincoln was gay, for example.  But I understand how gay is used as shorthand for trying to describe who Jack and Ennis are.  It just comes up short (no pun intended), because their backgrounds, the homophobia they experienced, and their relationships with other men and women make it too simplistic. 

There is a lot of evidence to point to, in both the movie and the story, to make the argument that either one of them could take on the label of bisexual or gay or even heterosexual.  But the interpretation of different behaviors - Jack's romp with Lureen, Ennis flipping Alma over for sex, Jack picking up the hustler, Ennis "putting the blocks" to Cassie, Jack telling Ennis about an affair with a ranchand's wife - is pretty much subjective and influenced by the interpreter's own point of view.  How we want to label either of them reflects our own experiences and perspectives, as is how we label, or identify if you will, ourselves.  I've had friends who call themselves bisexual, and my inclination is to roll my eyes because I've mostly seen them involved with men.  But in the end, it's how they identify and I try to respect that.

Not to say I don't want to simplify things and put them into nice, neat packages myself.  My second time seeing the movie, I went with a friend and she asked me if Jack was "the gay one", and did I think if he hadn't "seduced" Ennis maybe Ennis wouldn't be gay.  I didn't really know how to answer her, except to say that I didn't think either one of them saw themselves as gay because they couldn't (or wouldn't).  Are they married gay men?  Hetero men with a one-shot thing that lasted a lifetime?  I don't really know, and in a way, it's not that important to me anymore. 

In different circumstances, they might have gone through a "coming out" process and defined themselves as gay men, even had more of a chance to have a more open and fulfilling relationship. The beauty of the movie is watching them struggle to hold onto something between them when they didn't have the resources to "move to Denver" to be together.  And it messes with my head because I have gone through a very different process than they did, yet I still struggle with how content I am. 

And to think, I initially thought the subject "One Man Men" was gonna be about Ennis' emotional monogamy to Jack.

[Jack_ME]

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

[Jack_ME]

JCinNYC2006 thank you for your thoughtful post.

I think you and I would agree on many points, points which I've been trying to bring up for discussion here and elsewhere. It's good that folks think about what they mean when they use the phrase: sexual orientation.

The whole realm of ones sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, are NOT automatically interchangeable. They DO represent different facets of a person's being. When folks unthinkingly slap a label on someone else, they are denying these important differences.

It's amusing that one of the arguements for "gay rights" is that "we are just like you", yet the "gay" culture is very much about saying the opposite most of the time in action and deed!

There is no doubt that mental, emotional, spiritual wholeness and health are important to the well being of every individual. And there is also no doubt that many homosexual people have suffered due to negative sick-making thinking foisted on them by institutions of culture, which they've adopted and through which they view themselves. That is tragic and very sad and what we should all want for each other, is to beome more whole and more healthy in ourselves. So it is true that some folks are in denial, and those folks need to come to terms with things they have INTENTIONALLY repressed or denied. But it does NOT follow that ALL homosexuals are suffering in that way, UNLESS they make some public statement or change of culture around their sexual orientation. Many homosexuals are healthy and whole and know their sexual orientation but choose to keep that part of their lives private, and in all other ways are simply average members of their society.  These labels which get tossed around are too limiting, and becasue they are too limiting, we force individuals under the one we decide is most suitable. And it's pretty evident that the labels Hetero, Homo, and BI are just not going to cover every person and every circumstance, becasue those labels are loaded with implications which are not accurate for all people. A Hetero who engages in a Homo act, or relationship. A Homo who engages in a Hetero act or relationship (who marries for instance). These simplistic labels force other implications of denial/repression which while true in some cases are simply not true in all cases.

More thoughts.....
Jack in Maine

[Aussie Chris]

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.

Wow, I only slightly miss your point?  I'm glad because I was worried that we were just stuck on semantics.  But I think the penny has finally dropped.

Ok, so you see a distinction between homosexual behaviour (sexual activity with someone of the same gender but without necessarily identifying with that behaviour) and gay (a person that identifies themself as being part of a community of homosexuals).  Is this a fair summary of your point?

You also have a problem with the double standard where it is apparently ok for “heterosexual” women to have homosexual encounters and retain their “straight” status, but with men a single homosexual encounter forever brands them as gay and in denial.  Again, is this fair?

For now, I’ll just assume that you’re ok with these statements and within this context I agree with you that Jack and Ennis were not gay.  However, I still struggle with your contention that Ennis was innately heterosexual.  If you say this because Ennis may never have had a homosexual encounter at all had he not met Jack, I think that misses the point that Ennis had it within him to fall romantically and expressively in love with Jack in the first place?  Apart from the possible exclusion of youthful experimentation, I just don’t think heterosexuals do this, innately or otherwise.

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.

Hmmm, there’s that identity thing again.  For the record, I don’t think that if a man has sex with another man it automatically makes him homosexual, but at the risk of being yelled at, if he has a 20 year sexual relationship with another man, when exactly does his inherent heterosexuality end?  Without making any accusations, isn’t this a question of maturity?

I’m going to move now to your rant (meant lovingly) about the double standards of female versus male sexual diversity and labelling, and more importantly how these are used as tools of discrimination (though I don't get to this until the end of this post).

This issue runs right through society on just about every level, particularly straight western society.  Just about every straight person I have talked to about art has professed that the female form has more artistic merit than the male one.  They gleefully describe how a female’s shape is more interesting to paint/sculpt/view.  In my early days of coming out I accepted this along with many other declarations along those lines.  At the time this bothered me but I didn’t have the words to counter it.  But there was one other aspect to this that made it difficult for me to argue: you see I personally don’t have a problem with the female form.  I am definitely gay, but I still see beauty in the feminine physique and I don’t see the need to find fault in women just because I’m a gay male.  The fact that the heterosexual world seems to be caught up with this silliness is their problem, not mine.

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.

Definitely, although I can’t help but think that the use of labelling to discriminate is unduly influencing this conversation.  As I alluded to earlier, I’m a bit of a “sticks and stones” sort of person; I cannot be damaged with words unless I give credibility to those words.  I am gay, and like any of the characteristics I have (height, nationality, gender, age, etc) - I cannot be made to be offended by what simply is.

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.)

Ok, sorry but you’ve completely lost me here.  I was prepared to accept the notion that there was a difference (for you) between being gay and homosexual in the degree of acceptance, but I cannot accept that you can be gay without being homosexual.  And a woman who falls romantically in love with a gay man is neither gay nor homosexual - she is simply foolish unless she didn’t know he was gay.  [winces in preparation for being flamed on that point]

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.

Let me ask you this: if there was no discrimination in the world, or if the individuals that might be accused of being gay didn’t care what others thought, how could this label be either wrong or limiting?  And the fact that they feel they need to conceal their sexuality through secrecy or abstinence, isn’t that the very definition of denial?

Peace Jack, when we take away sadness, what’s left is happiness.

[JCinNYC2006]

Hey Jack, thanks for your reply.  I agree, we are in synch on many points about orientation vs. identity and how they are used interchangeably when they can also mean different things.  And a main gripe for me is when there's an effort to put a label on someone, as many fans of BBM want to do with Jack and Ennis, and when we try to understand how the person identifies him or herself.  I'm a gay man.  I am a social worker and I have tended to concentrate mostly on LGBT cilents.  My doctor was gay.  My therapist was gay.  My dentist was gay.  Even an old accountant of mine was friggin' gay.  For a long time I surrounded myself in a community where being gay was a big focus, and I think that I did so as I was creating my own identity.  How good it was for me is debateable now (i.e. I don't have many straight friends, over-reliance on an increasingly splintered gay community, etc.) but that was my process. 

In a way, gays have become as dependent on labels for orientation being fixed in the same way that straights are - the label gives the illusion of thinking that you know all you need to know about this person and who they love or what they do in bed.  It's comforting to think that way, but limiting.  Taking on an identity like gay has political meaning as much as personal value, and like African American, the term has evolved as gay people have had more power to define how to identify ourselves.  We went from inverts to homosexuals to homophiles to gay, all the way to today where there's a move to reclaim queer as a more all encompassing identity.  And for many people, there's just less conception of even being able to claim an identity - situations like with Ennis where being 'normal' meant being a man who gets married and has kids.

It can be interesting to speculate on whether Jack would have adapted more easily to a gay identity at some point.  He certainly seems to have more potential as  he made more of an effort to at least be more comfortable and accepting of his attraction to men, to the point of suggesting over and over to Ennis the idea of living together and building a life together.  His relationship with Lureen had more mixed motivations.  I don't doubt that he had feelings for her and could probably sustain a sexual relationship as well, but clearly to a degree his motivation was more financial stability.  This is a position that women have been in since I don't when and has only changed in the last few decades, and obviously not for all women.  I guess I just can't say that because Jack could have more easily come to identify as gay means that he was gay, and I know plenty of people disagree with that perspective.

One point that Chris made, about if someone is accused of being gay and he doesn't care, how could calling him gay be "wrong or limiting"?  Two people come to mind:  Ricky Martin and Liberace.  Liberace did have relationships with men, and went to his grave denying this, even to the point of winning a libel case against a British newspaper.  That we now know he was involved with men, I guess yeah, you could say that made him "gay".  The necessity for him to be in denial about it, which I see as a maladaptive way of coping, is more important to me though, than claiming his as gay. 

Ricky Martin comes to mind as well because there are rumors that he is also gay.  He has denied it, saying something to the effect of "those people who want to think of me as gay are welcome to, and so are those who want to think of me as straight".  An evasive answer I suppose, and I know plenty of people who call it denial, and one friend who actually claims he was propositioned by him!  But what if he is heterosexual?  Then the label is inaccurate.  And when we will know?  If he decides to come out?  After he's dead?  Will it never be proven?  The identity gay has to be owned by the individual; otherwise I see it as short hand.  Useful, but limited, shorthand.

Juan

[Rayn]

"...to be human is to have sexuality and to be human is also NOT to have sexuality limited to physical impulse such as animals have for the purposes of procreation. Humans are sexual beings, and humans are emotional beings. Humans need bonding, and humans need love. There are those times when two humans bond and love and that leads to physical desire and sexual expression regardless of the genders of the two humans who  love each other."

Jack in Maine


    I want to respond to Patrick's question about "One Man Men" then a bit to the insightful post by Jack in Maine.   I do agree with Jack in Maine that for Ennis it's all about Jack, the person.  Ennis loves Jack and isn't interested in other men because he has more true intimacy with Jack than he's had with anyone else in his life. 

He loves Jack for that reason first.  It's not about Jack's body so much as it is Jack's heart and mind, but he loves Jack's mind and heart so much that it finds expression in physical form.  It's clear to me that Ennis and Jack are soulmates and souls, though they exist in bodies, have no gender.  This is confusing for Ennis at first, but it is his love that wins over his confusion and his fear to a great degree too.   

Jack is an oasis of intimacy and understanding for Ennis and that is part of the beauty of the relationship.  Ennis is one of the walking wounded, rememeber?  His folks are killed in a car accident, he was raised by siblings who, in the end have their own interests and who finally leave Ennis on his own, but more importantly, Ennis has suffered the terrifying trauma of seeing Earl, the tough old bird, lying in a ditch brutally maimed and murdered.  His own father may have had a hand in that, but regardless, his father makes a point of exposing his own nine year old son to this horror.  That left a deep and lasting fear in Ennis, but still, he loves Jack, still he cannot stop seeing Jack, he needs Jack.  It's a wonder that he can being so nearly emotionally crippled by the fear of homosexuality and what might happen to him if he ventures into that area of his sexuality!    So, it really is a testament to the power of real love that Ennis can fall in love with Jack at all. 

Love is a force of nature! 

That is what is so clear in Jack in Maine's post too.  I agree about 98% with Jack in Maine's views on the fim and characters, but the heart of what he says, the real gem within the lotus is  ..."Humans need bonding, and humans need love. There are those times when two humans bond and love and that leads to physical desire and sexual expression regardless of the genders of the two humans who love each other." 

Jack in Maine, it couldn't have been said better!  Thank you for your post. It was a three course meal with dessert.

Now, Patrick... I do know of men who are One Man Men.  Some guys are completely happy with one partner and find all they need in being with one man.  I don't think that we are all like that, but many are and personally, I think a guy is damned lucky to find a partner with whom he can be one with on as many levels as possible.  It's an ideal not many reach or reach for, but it's possible. 

Personally, I have been in two relationships where my partner was all I needed.  Oh, it didn't mean I didn't look and feel attraction for other guys, but I never felt much need to go outside the relationship of physical intimacy.  I think what Jack in Maine's post poiints to also is the many layers of experience, feelings, ideas and history that human beings, each of us really is.  No one is one dimensional.  Ok, that's it from me... before I begin to ramble.   

Peace,
Rayn

[Front-Ranger]

I just wanted to reply to this because it's the site of my very first post on this board, back on March 8, 2006. We were a wordy bunch back then, weren't we!! Thanks and love to all of you who are still here today, and there are quite a few! Funny thing is, I don't think we have resolved this topic yet!!!

Thanks especially to Impish on this occasion, for introducing me to the "One Man Man" Rufus Wainwright!!