Going for Brokeback II

Yeah! Shut up Devin! Everyone knows the Right doesnt hate the player, they hate the game.

Not having seen the flick, I have no opinion about the main point, but labeling this other reviewer a homophobe goes a bit far. I don't care to see sex acts involving animals or someone shitting on someone else. I find these things distasteful--but I don't have any hatred for the people who partake in them. Gay sex is unusual, and it's understandable that people might not want to view it, even if they are tolerant of homosexuality in general. Hell, there are people who have straight sex all the time who prefer not to see it explicitly in film, and that is an equally valid opinion. Finding homosexual sex not entertaining is a long way from homophobia.

I will patiently wait for some idiot to come into this thread and say that Devin's homophobia = racism comment doesn't hold up because gay people choose to be gay.

Great piece Devin.

Yeah, but if you think two men making love is gross, then you need to grow up.

A homophobe, by definition, is "one who is prejudiced against homosexuals". Prejudice means "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation."

So yes, being "grossed out" by gay sex does constitute homophobia. One might not be Pat Robertson (a Level 16 Homophobe under D&D 3.5 rules), but the prejudice exists all the same.

So if I'd rather see hetero sex than gay sex, that means I'm a homophobe? Somebody needs to get their head out of their ass.

Thank you, Devin.

Gross.

No-one's saying that at all and you know it. But to dismiss what is by all acounts a dramatically strong and emotionally affecting film because of gay content-some of it sexual-is homophobic. No-one's saying you have to replace all you nudie tapes with BUTTBOYZ V, here. No-one's trying to foist ~THE GAY~ upon you. No-one's asking you to be physically aroused by these scenes. But if you can't view them as an extension of the love story being told without going "ewwww that is soooo icky" then yeah, you're pretty much a homophobe.

Needs to be said, but if you haven't seen the film, please don't bother with your opinion. It's worthless because you have no ability to discuss the film. And what Shalit is talking about isn't a review. He's completely wrong about this plot point of the film. It would be like saying Darth Vader wields a purple lightsaber and is completely covered in hair. It's that inaccurate.

And again, it makes me question just what kind of relationships in life Gene Shalit has. If Jack Twist is a sexual predator, then we all are, every one of us.

And no, if you don't like the film, you're not a homophobe. I've seen a lot of constructive reviews about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and why it didn't work for them. It was mostly the complaint that the film doesn't let you in, that it's distant and cold. I don't agree with that, but THAT's valid film criticism. None of them had to do with revulsion at same sex intercourse, though. But come on, be a grownup. It's just fucking. You hardly see anything. Grow up a little bit and understand the world's a lot bigger than you.

Great piece, Devin

Way to go. It is so nice to see a well spoken argument that gets right to the point and makes it clearly. Thank you.

To the homophobes, some of whom have already chimed in -- don't feel so bad. Racists never understand they are racist, so why should you? Oh, I dunno, because its about friggin' time!?!!??!! Because we are intelligent enough to form our own opinions and not just regurgitate what we heard on Fox News or in gym class in 7th grade?

Ask yourselves how you came to think that way. Is it because your parents gave off the homophobic vibe, or because its "cool" to talk trash about gay people with your friends? What if that were you they were trash talking about? Would you still like it? Is it because you heard the word faggot on Howard Stern, so it must be OK?

Some say political correctness has gone too far. Perhaps it has. I have noticed however, a swing back to hateful remarks being more socially acceptable. People are now making the argument that just because they are tired of watching what they say and being "PC", that it somehow negates all the progress made to be respectful.

My feelings are that I would rather take two extra seconds of my day to make sure I use respectful terminology than offend someone and make for an uncomfortable situation. It's as if all these homophobes, racists, and chauvinists were only pretending to be enlightened because they were told to be polite.

Evolve people! It's too late for Gene Shallow, but not for you!

I'm against head-in-ass relations between any genders. It's forbidden in the bible. I think.

I never said "if you'd rather"...preference is preference. But regarding the reviewer quote in Devin's article about if being "grossed out" by gay sex makes him a homophobe...then yeah, technically by definition it does.

Good piece, Devin. Thank you.

And everyone please note that in the earlier post it wasn't just bestiality that was compared to gay sex. "Shitting on someone" was as well.

I hate the right as much as anyone else, I also hate devin as much as anyone else.

However, I do disagree with this:
"He asks, “Does being grossed out by gay men having sex make me a homophobe? Does it make me a bad person?”"

Actually I don't think that makes anyone a homophobe or a bad person. I dont think its anyworse than being grossed out by imagining elderly people having sex, or overweight people having sex, or any other class of people you're not attracted to. I don't think theres anything wrong with it.

Being grossed out by dogs having sex doesn't mean I hate dogs, I have 3.

(consequently, dogs having sex kinda turns me on)

Anyways, just had to make point of that, theres nothing wrong with being grossed out by the sexual acts of someone you're not attracted to.

I do agree though that choosing the term sexual predator is an obvious slash against gays for no apparent reason. I haven't even seen the film and I know thats an idiotic biased approach to an anti-homosexual agenda.

Btw I do hate you devin.

Despite agreeing with the entire gist of Devin's article (and I want to be clear that I strongly concur with the original point), I have to say that the racial analogy at the end is just logically ludicrous. Sexuality isn't an aspect of race.

Heterosexuals are hardwired to find homosexual sex unpleasant. That should be no more controversial than the (correct) view that homosexuals are born with that preference.

Allowing that sexual preference to color your opinion of others (like Shalit has done) would make you a homophobe. I don't care to see an unattractive heterosexual couple have sex. That doesn't mean I hate them or think they're doing anything wrong - I just wouldn't choose to see it.

To use the same analogy, “Does thinking straight men choose to dislike the idea of men having sex with men make me ignorant?” Pretty much, yeah. Let me make a comparison: exchange “straight men choose to dislike” with “gay men choose to like” and reread your sentence. You’d be ignorant, wouldn’t you?

I think some of us are confusing the concept of homesexual love or the inferrence of homosexual relations with the concept of gay porn. I haven't seen the film yet (Yeah I know Nordling, I should't post-whatever) but I don't recall reading about any graphically sexual shots that would rival Basic Instinct or anything to that degree. I haven't heard of any reason to be rationally "grossed out" by the film.

Lucidz (and remember he hates Devin?) nailed it above when he said that not wanting to watch someone you aren't attracted to screw isn't a sin. I mean imagine 90's Roseane hopping on top of the current incarnation of Rosie Odonnel. Does it make me a bad person to think that I might not be able to eat for an hour? Now if you think it is icky just because two men like each other...then yes you would be ignorant.

The worst part of this is that a movie which seems to be about a relationship is being boiled down to sex acts. We might just be missing the bigger picture.

Fools. I think the proper assumption here is that "if you don't get grossed out by straight sex" and "get grossed out by gay sex", you might be homophopic.

Personally, I think both can be done tastefully and meaningfully in a film, but I can honestly say that in real life, if I'd walk into a room where people I knew were banging, whether hetero or homo, I'd be grossed out.

Sex where I'm not involved isn't something I give a shit to see, but that's not the point here.

That's not a given. Thinking Twist is a predator does not mean one thinks ALL homosexuals are predators. That's a cynical assumption on your part.

Note- I'm just playing devil's advocate here because MY cynical nature makes me assume Shalit's remarks were homophobic. But that's just an assumption on my part. Logically speaking Devin's argument up there doesn't work.

The last few lines of the article have me puzzled... I'm tolerant of homosexuality, but the act itself is not exactly natural, that can hardly be argued so you can't expect a hetero sexual male to be force himself to be accepting of the image of homosexual relations.

To all of you "I'd prefer not to see gay sex, but I'm not a homophobe" folks out there, have you actually seen the movie? There's scarcely any gay sex in it. In fact, I'd wager there's actually more screentime dedicated to heterosexual sex.

It would be an entirely different issue if there were long graphic penetration shots or something. I can see being put off by that, as it would be an EXTREMELY intimate look at something with which you're entirely unfamiliar. And, incidentally, I don't think I'd level any accusation of homophobia on someone who was a little apprehensive of such a movie (just as I don't think people who might not want to see porn or sexually graphic films like Brown Bunny are necessarily "scared" of heterosexual sex).

But Brokeback Mountain is really very quaint in its depictions. If this level of sexuality "grosses you out," you're a huge pussy. It's practically ready-for-primetime.

Furthermore, gay people have been watching movies full of heterosexual sex for years, and I've never heard them complain. Mature audiences learn to appreciate movies for what they are. It's not essential to be turned on by Brokeback Mountain's sex scenes to "get" the movie, just as it's not essential to be turned on by A History of Violence's sex scenes to "get" the movie.

As for Jack being a predator, that's a position that would need a lot more backup than Shalit provides or, judging from his reviews, is capable of providing. You'd have to do some serious subtext diving to even come close to justifying it, and you'd still have an exceptionally weak case. It's definitely not well-supported enough by the text of the film to throw it out as an aside in a bad movie review.

Again, see the film. If the relationship between Ennis/Twist is predatory in any way, than any onscreen romance you've ever seen on screen is about a stalker. That's how flat wrong Shalit is.

It's not his opinion about this film - it's this specific argument that's completely wrong.

How is it "not natural?" Do homosexuals have synthetic body parts or something?

My Obi Wan Kenobi 12inch figures with scale replica strap ons do!

Nordling, for all of his repetition, brings up and interesting point of examination for later discussion. How would we define the relationships in some of our best known love films? I think we'd find some interesting answers, particularly when we examine films of the 40s- 60s.

Just an aside...something to ponder next time you watch John Wayne smack the shit out of Maureen O'hara.

Uh, yeah it can. I assume the act you're referring to is anal sex. I also would like you to define "natural." I assume you mean something that is evolutionarily productive, in which case "the act itself" is no less natural than oral sex or any type of sex not used to create new life. So almost all the sex anyone ever has (using some form of birth control) is not natural.

Think you're thoughts through first, please.

Homo sex occurs in nature, with countless animals. In wolfpacks it's used by the alpha male to show dominance.
I think Domingo is confusing "natural" with "icky".

Is homosexuality a choice or not? The denim-heavy poster of the movie tells me everything I need to know about Ang Lee's stance - he thinks it's in their jeans.

Not having seen the film myself I really don't have a LOT to add but I think, just in general terms, anyone "grossed out" by ANY sex in an actual film (porn notwithstanding) aren't really able to see sex in cinema as anything but sex. Which, homophobic or not, is extremely juvenile. Charlize Theron was extremely unattractive in "Monster," but I don't remember hearing anything about the love scenes between her and Christina Ricci being "icky" or "unnatural." I think the reason that the scenes are "icky" to some people is simply because it's two gay men - which is indeed, homophobic. And the comparisons to overweight or elderly people don't really work because these are Pretty People.

And I don't think the comparison to racism is that far-fetched either. Homophobes hate gays for something they can't control. Racists hate other races for something tey can't control. The only difference - homophobes usually hide behind "God."

Considering most every guy on this board who has stated an issue (large or small) with guy on guy sex would have no problem with some hot girl on girl action, calling them 'homophobes' is diluting the definition of the word into something damn near meaningless. I find extensive guy on guy sex somewhat squicky, but then I find extensive ugly guy on ugly girl sex even more squicky (or ugly girl on ugly girl a la Monster for that matter). It's much more a matter of finding the participants attractive than their sex. And even with attractive folk it can get squicky under various circumstances.

btw, it's pretty weak to start off the discussion by resorting to Godwin's Law (or the homophobe equivalent, whatever that may be).

To add my two cents:

I think Shalit's labeling of Twist's character as a sexual predator constitutes a blatant misunderstanding of the film itself.

I saw the film, and I enjoyed it. I thought it was well-made, well-acted, and well-written. I didn't get knocked over by emotion, as many viewers have, though I found the story of these two men to be terribly sad.

I believe that love transcends boundaries of gender, and that the characterization of the same-sex love in Brokeback as "predatory" is ludicrious, displaying a certain prejudice on Shalit's part, as well as an inability to get past the homosexual aspects of what is, essentially, a traditionally tragic romantic story.

All of that said, watching Ennis and Jack get it on, while not making me "uncomfortable," did convince me that cinematic man on man sex is probably not for me. I have limited experience with seeing gay sex portrayed on screen, and perhaps that has something to do with it. I wouldn't call it being "grossed out." Gay sex just doesn't look like much fun.

The level of intolerance in this thread toward people who were discomforted by the portrayal of the act itself is self-defeating.

No one who believes that homosexuals should be treated fairly and respectfully is going to convince anyone else of those beliefs by calling those unfamiliar with the physical act "juvenile." You're only going to increase tension. That might be fun on the spur of the moment on a messageboard, but it's ultimately harmful to your admirable underlying beliefs.

I can support homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and support the civil rights of those who engage in that lifestyle, while as a heterosexual finding the act of gay sex to be uncomfortable-looking and seemingly-kinda-painful. This is no different from finding a cinematic portrayl of hetero, anal, sex to be uncomfortable. Our personal threshholds for what we enjoy watching on a movie screen varies from person to person.

If, after seeing the film, you decide that Twist is a predator, or that gay relationships are "wrong," or that they are "deviant," then I think it's safe to say that you harbor some prejudice or homophobia. But expressing discomfort at watching the act of that sex itself, chastely portrayed or no, is not "homophobia," nor is it juvenile.

By labeling it as such, you're engaging in the very same tactics as those on the "other side" of this debate - using inflated rhetoric and condemnation to dismiss other peoples harmless feelings on the issue. Gay sex won't harm this country, and not having a desire to watch gay sex won't harm gay people or their rights.

I try to avoid getting riled up by Devin, but seriously, wtf.

I get grossed out by gay sex, in the same way that I would get grossed out if I saw my parents having sex, or if I were at a nude beach and stumbled into some really fat couple getting it on, etc. Does that make me juvenile and immature? Yeah, I guess. But I don't think that makes me a 1) homophobe 2) parent-o-phobe 3) fat-o-phobe.

I don't mind the people, or the concept, or even the specifics. I'm comfortable with the idea of two gay men or women having sex with one another. I just don't want to actually WATCH it happen. If they're having a good time, I'll take their word for it.

Hell, the only reason I don't get grossed out at hetero sex is that I (and probably most males) subconsciously project myself into the scene in the male's role. I don't particularly want to project myself into another man's anus.

Remember, that the only real glimpse we have of it in the film is their first time (presumably, the first time either has had sex with a man). Compare it to similar de-virginizing scenes between inexperienced heterosexuals in other movies (esp. with regard to the girl involved). I've read me some Savage Love - comfortable man-on-man sex generally takes lube and practice, neither of which appeared to be handy.

I don't think this first, painful-looking scene is meant to be representative of the sex these characters have during the course of their relationship.

I hear anal projection is going to be even better than IMAX.

Experiencing discomfort while watching homosexual sex is not equal to homophobia. I agree with those who have said that it is no different than being "grossed out" by old or unattractive people having sex. If you don't want to see granny in her birthday suit, it doesn't mean you're prejudiced against old people. That's just ridiculous.

I don't see how that follows. How does being "grossed out" prevent objective consideration? I don't see how that's a necessary result.

And that's what I mean by juvenile. The people who are grossed out by this are just focusing on "Eww - two dudes doin' it!" and don't really let themselves see that subtext.

I also don't assume this is supposed to be either character's first time having gay sex. Ennis seemed pretty confident of what went where. I'm thinking both had some experience with the sex part.

I've never had gay sex but I'm pretty confident about what goes where as well. The same could be said the first time any of us had hetero-sex. We all knew what went where regardless of the fact we had never done it.

Well, I'll open up further embarrassment and say my first straight sex wasn't nearly as confidently handled as Ennis's first gay sex.

That's a very good point, and I couldn't agree more. I'm not saying that the act of gay sex is somehow distasteful or anything. All I'm saying is that the "de-virginizing" we see (great word, by the way) looks pretty damn painful to me.

I don't think the sex we see is representative of their relationship, either, and I'd be loathe to extrapolate that one glimpse into the story of their sexual history. But the seeming uncomfortableness of what we <i>do</i> see goes a long way, I think, toward explaining any "discomfort" one might have with the act.

Again, if you were 'grossed out' by seeing a black man and a white woman have sex, what kind of a person would that make you?

Again, if you keep 'bringing up' an argument that has no bearing on the issue at hand, what kind of person does that make you?

Various minorities are not interchangeble as subjects of this debate without changing the dynamics of the issue.

Yeah, I thought maybe there was some question about Jack, but not Ennis.

I will say that one of the problems I had with the film (though I liked it, overall) was how abruptly this happened, though. Maybe it's due to the fact that it's two guys, and we guys are natural hornballs, but it rang sort of false that two guys (at least Ennis, if not Jack) who previously considered themselves 100 percent straight went from zero to 100 in the space of minutes. I figured the physical aspects of the relationship would have developed more before they actually got to the fucking. More snuggling and handjobs and such.

Yeah but couldn't the same be said for a movie that features hetero-defloration? If you see a movie in which a young couple has sex for the first time that's going to look uncomfortable and painful as well. But no one would walk away from that "uncomfortable" with the act of hetero-sex, so why should this be any different? I think there's way too much emphasis being placed on the fact that they're guys. They're two people in love and that's what lovers do.

I think what Devin is trying to say is that he is really into voyeurism.

...

Or, since he likes to switch contexts and call them equivalent, let me phrase it this way:

I don't like zucchini. I think it's gross. I am willing to eat brussel sprouts, but I won't eat zucchini at all if I can help it.

Does that make me zucc-o-phobe? Or maybe it means that I JUST DONT FUCKING LIKE THE TASTE OF ZUCCHINI?