I hate to admit this, but if faced with the choice of going to see Out of Africa or Brokeback Mountain, I would choose the latter instead of three and a half mind numbing hours of Meryl Streep and Robert Redneck. Redford. whatever.

No hat tip for Allah?

Oh, Ace -- sorry for forgetting about that e-mail you sent me. The answer is, no, I don't want to go to that midnight showing of Brokeback Mountain with you.

I question their gaytriotism.

Yeah, I agree with Dave. I'd rather see a movie written by Larry McMurty than anything with Redford in it.

Okay, but that Tammy Whoever person you linked sure does sound like a plain old-fashioned bigot. What does homosexuality have to do with all that other crap she's railing about? It's malignant nihilist narcissism etc. etc. to make a gay love story?

Hey jamie, I'm pretty sure Tammy Bruce is a lesbian...

What part of malignant nihilist narcissism do you not understand, jamie?

Why is Tammy a bigot?
And, is she also a homophobe?

Tammy's Bio.

Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist.

The best posts are the hidden posts, the cool kids' secret hangout. Anybody got a cig?

Wha' happened?

Liberals always seem to push their agendas in the most ham-fisted ways, with Hollywood being the worst offender. I personally would rather French kiss a shark than see "Brokeback Mountain", but that is not an indicator of some hostile homophobia. I simply have zero interest in seeing a gay love story that does not involve Angelina Jolie. Yet somehow, according to condescending libs who give themselves hernias pushing the gay agenda, I and 95% of most straight males who feel the same way must be some breed of grunting cave man.
I also hate that Gyllenhallyhal kid.

I personally would rather French kiss a shark than see "Brokeback Mountain",

Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it.

Is it possible that people won't see Bareback Mountain just because the entertainment value of watching gay cowboys eating pudding doesn't warrant buying a $10 movie ticket and sitting in a darkened theater with the kind of people who are excited about the prospect of watching gay cowboys eat pudding.

See, Hollywood doesn't understand the market.
If it had made a movie about two gay sheepgirls, they'd be swimming in dough right now. And they could feel good about foisting off more gay propaganda on the dullwitted plebians. But nooooo. They give us pretentious trash like Bareback mountain.

Douthat has a short post on critics' moral cheerleading of Brokeback.

I like the Tucker quote:

You either buy into this tale of men in love or you join the ranks of those who’ve been snickering during the movie’s prerelease trailers, and who can be divided into the insecure, the idiots, or the insecure idiots.

Really, I can't get to worked up about it. Indy/"High Brow" movies are made by lefty people and they're naturally gonna be cultruatlly lefty as such. They get behind important causes becaue they believe in them and doing so makes their film 'important.'

Frankly, they've just wore me out. I went to see 'The Passenger' yesterday and just mareled at the coming attractions. Film after film smugly delighted with it's own moral righteousness. You could almost see the grin about how each film was 'really gonna stick it to those rubes in Indiana.'

Fine. Whatever. What pisses me off is that there isn't another side. Where the fuck is Whit Stillman? Why aren't there more? As conservatives, are they all passing up film school to get their MBA?

Gyllenhallenhyllenhall

If this was a typo -- don't correct it.

Ghandi was boring. Even the scenery was boring. I did enjoy The Meaning of Sex. Don Roos did an excellent job writing and directing. Wd you consider that a gay lead movie?

Anyway, can we have a "fag-seat" poll?

we'll always have The Dukes of Hazzard

same message really, when you think about it.

There's another point I haven't seen mentioned yet.

This is a chick flick.

Seriously, nevermind the gayness, even with a heterosexual couple in the lead, it would be a chick flick. What's it about? A romantic relationship. No gun-fights, sword-fights, car chases, explosions, political intrigue, criminal plots, physical humor... That's what we call a chick flick. Guys don't want to see chick flicks when they have a hot babe in the lead and some light humor to ease the pain, but we can be dragged there by our girlfriends. Take away the humor and the hot babe? That's a hard sell.

This is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon without the martial arts or the hot chinese babe. Gee, do you you think those subtractions would make it more or less attractive to the average heterosexual male?

And I don't think the comparison to Ghandi is appropriate. I haven't seen it, but I would assume there is a lot of politics and history there. I, like many other guys, find those to be interesting subjects. Gay sheepherders? not so much.

You know what makes me cringe? Those ads for King Kong that make it sound like a chick flick. WTF?

For a long time gay characters have been featured in movies. . .as Magical Homosexuals Who Offer the Confused Straight Leads Wisdom About Life and Love (hardly "real characters" at all).

Not to take away from an excellently thought-out post, Ace, but let's not forget the other cringe-worthy film stereotype, the Earth Mother Black Woman Whose Funky Presence Helps Tight-Assed White People Get In Touch With Their Inner Negro (a role Queen Latifah seems determined to copyright).

Christ on a crutch, Stepin Fetchit was Olivier compared to those characters.

I have no interest in seeing it myself, partly because there are very few movies that I'm all that interested in seeing. Hell, I don't even have a strong desire to see King Kong or the Chronicles of Narnia (although I'll probably see King Kong at some point). But I admit, I also have no interest in watching two guys hook up. Oh, and it actually sounds kind of boring.

But it's gotten ridiculously good reviews over at rottentomatoes. I wonder if it's because it's that good, or critics are just unwilling to pan it because of its topic. I suspect it's the latter, since any negative reviews have to start with the mandatory, "I'm tolerant of homosexuals, but this just wasn't a good movie" disclaimer.

How could you miss this gem:

If you want to be convinced that Brokeback Mountain is a gay movie, read David Leavitt's annoying article arguing that it's not a gay movie. Especially this sentence:

His Ennis Del Mar is as monolithic as the mountainscape in which—with the same swiftness, brutality, and precision that he exhibits in shooting an elk—he fucks Jack Twist for the first time.

When did we go from "shepherds" to "sheepherders?"

You know what makes me cringe? Those ads for King Kong that make it sound like a chick flick. WTF?

I think they have to run those ads. For some reason, a lot of women I know just don't seem interested in Kong. The ad campaign is geared toward trying to make them see there's an emotional core (blah! bring on the T-rex) to this film.

When did we go from "shepherds" to "sheepherders?"

I blame Tex Avery.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this review at Slate

. . . they come together again and again and head back to the wild—aware that if they're caught, they could be lynched by all their neighbors, those less-than-liberal "real" men who wouldn't know a real man if he fucked them in the ass. (Or maybe that's the only way they would know a real man.)

>>Hey jamie, I'm pretty sure Tammy Bruce is a lesbian...

That doesn't preclude her from sounding like a bigot. It just makes it that much more annoying.

(The idea that people should see Brokeback Mountain as some kind of consciousness raising program for straits is also annoying.)

Nice post, Ace.

I'm not a great fan of Bruce's writing, but fail to see what is 'bigoted' about what she said.

I think the aversion to male affection is partially socialized. If you look at various cultures around the world, some of them (Arab, Persian, parts of Latin America) seem to encourage male touching, (though not in that way - -- Ok, in Afghanistan, definitely that way).

However, it doesn't me others have an issue with it. Even though I'm gay, and even though I'm really looking forward to this movie, I wouldn't expect my heterosexual male friends to see it, much less be excited about it.

For gay men who think there's something off about someone like Ace not particularly wanting to sit through it, an apt comparison would be a movie about lesbians. I, personally, could sit through it. Not particularly enjoy it, but I could sit through it. However, I have plenty of gay male friends who wouldn't be caught in flannel anywhere near a movie chock full of graphic lesbian sex.

And anyone who spends any time in an urban area consisting of mainly homosexual male social groups knows gay men are not polite about lesbian sex, if they have kind things to say about female genitalia at all.

I suspect people like Sullivan are well aware of this and have plenty of experience with the sentiments. However, this is yet another example that Sullivan's motivations in all thought and ideology are nothing more complicated than "All people must accept all parts of me at all times or else there is something wrong with them!"

That is really all his "work" is about.

I still haven't gotten around to seeing Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Apparently I harbor a latent hostility to droids.

Or, given Hayden Christensen's performance in Episode II, maybe it's my homophobia again.

I haven't seen a movie in a theatre since mid 2003 (and that was the only one I'd seen that year).

Until someone has the f*cking stones to make a movie highlighting the positive effects of our efforts in either Afghanistan and/or Iraq, I'm done.

The stories of heroic soldiers over there, fighting animalistic foes, are legion. There are enough stories over there to make 100 films.

I'm certainly not breaking my streak for a man-on-man chick-flick.

I too thought Ghandi was boring. His next movie, Sexy Beast was better

I can't wait for Spurwing's take on all this. lol!

Not only do hetero men not want to view other men having gay sex, they by and large don't want to view other men having straight sex. Thus the immense popularity of girl-on-girl scenes at all levels of porn from late night cable fare to XXX stuff.

I remember when 'Out of Africa' first hit the theaters. I knew almost instantly from the ads that this was going to be an intensely dull movie. Some nice scenery and a few bits of excitement here and there but so determined to be profound that it appeals primarily to those critics themselves concerned with being profound. I recall my mother was interested in it but then the name Isak Dinesen meant something to her while it was a complete blank to me and just about everyone within two decades of my then age.

I regret that this movie got good reviews, because there is still no way I'm going to see it. Or rent it. What could possibly inspire me to want to see this? The plot sounds depressing to me. I guess I'm just close minded.

I see your point about deracination. Haile Berry is biracial anyway. Denzel Washington, for his part, I enjoyed most in the first two Blade movies, wherein he played a comic book superhero.

Still, I'd argue that it isn't hard for an urban-dwelling white person to identify with any character in Barbershop or Woo, nor to enjoy watching Eddie Murphy in one of his 1980s outings, nor to watch Kings of Comedy or Chris Rock. Certain urban hassles fall equally on all races: rude strangers, traffic, ugly building, not being able to find a decent guy/girl etc.

Can't really say I identify with herding sheep though. Or fantasising about other guys. But I will take that pudding...

Nicely spliced, regarding both sides of the 'avenue.'
Ultimately, who cares.
Clearly, whomever the folks who put whatever movie from whatever year have an agenda.
Gee, no new news there for God's sake.
This year is no different.
YAWN.
Couple a goat herders who go to town on one another.
YAWN
When does the outskirts of Tehran get lit up?
"Brokeback....." hunh?
It's a movie, folks......
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
HALLE

Ahem. Denzel Washington in Blade?

What are you, Jiminy Glick?

(Glick kept asking Sam Jackson what it had been like to star in movies which actually starred Laurence Fishburn or Denzel Washington.)

Denzel Washington, for his part, I enjoyed most in the first two Blade movies

. . . that would be Wesley Snipes, I believe.

I have zero interest in seeing two men having sex. Now, that doesn't mean I disapprove of their activity in any moral sense -- if you're both of age, in your right minds, and are willing, then hey! saddle up and ride. I just care to see if, hear it, or even hear about it. It gives me the creepy-crawlies to think of two dudes getting it on, and no amount of P.C. indoctrination is going to change that.

I feel the same way about the S&M freaks, piercing aficionados, and people who have covered their dermis with more ink than the Sunday edition of the New York Times.

I'm not judgin' ya, pal; I just ain't gonna subsidize your lifestyle with my ticket-money. If I have to sit through a chick flick, I should at least have the possibility of seeing a naked female -- otherwise, what's the damned point?

If this movie truly wanted to portray gay cowboys in a realistic way, five minutes after the credits role there would be so much ass matter flying around and hitting the camera lense that it would look like one of those really muddy, four-wheel drive truck commercials. Only with more grunting.

I snicker during the previews for this movie for several reasons:

1. Can't stop hearing Cartman going on and on about "gay cowboys eating pudding";

2. How the artsy-fartsy left is about as subtle as a 2X4 across the noggin' when it comes to cultural issues.

3. The fact that my laughing drives smug liberals like that clown at Slate absolutely nuts.

Ace, methinks you doth protest too much.

I have not seen the film yet. Everything I've read about it from actual movie-reviewer-types makes it seem like one I could enjoy, but that's because I like all kinds of movies, especially good ones.

As for the "message" that this movie represents, so what? The filmmakers have tried to make it pretty clear that the theme they strived for is universal-- love denied. Whether it's denied because it's a love that never worked out, an adulterous affair too scandalous to unmask, or you're a pair of married gay cowboys, the fundamental issue is the same, and it's one that's been used in all sorts of movies (and, oh, a good chunk of Shakespeare, too).

That's why the film strikes a chord with a lot of folks as so "radical"-- it's not about marchers or quilts or PFLAG rallies. It's a love story, period.

That said, I understand the innate reluctance to see something like this, for all the reasons you elucidate. I'm not eager to see Ledger and Gyllenhaaahdlalbaikal make out, either. Gay stuff makes me, and most heterosexual men, oogie. Nothing bigoted there-- just a basic socio-biological reaction.

But hey, love is love, right? I can't accept ugly old people falling in love, or Jennifer Lopez falling in love, either. But these things happen, even to gay people. And most human emotions are indeed "universal," whether you like the cunt *or* the cock.

Anyway. . . I think you're on to something, Ace. Bash the people who will bash folks for simply not being interested in the movie. They're fair game. But don't bash the movie *concept*, it sounds honest enough, and universal in theme if not the gender-specific details.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I just care to see if, hear it, or even hear about it

That may quite possibly have been the most unfortunate typo I have ever made. The statement should have been: "I just do not care to see it, hear it, or even hear about it". Just to be clear.

(I'm waiting for compos or Michael to chime in with some kind of "thou protesteth too much" crack.)

Turns out there's quite a lot to be said about movies that people haven't seen. As someone for whom art is a career, rather than a diversion, I'm not surprised. Trust me, no amount of brow-beating and shame-inducing-rhetoric can generate an audience - especially if the art is high quality. The better it is, the more excuses people have for avoiding it. Or belittling it. Or even destroying it.

What is this crap?

Many straights will see it, just as they saw Ghandi, because it's a movie an educated, enlightened person should see. But for those less concerned in what they should see than what they want to see, it's going to be a tough sell.

If you're saying that the people who will go see Brokeback or Ghandi think that's the case, then I agree. But I reject that simply because the movie is about Ghandi, or gays, that it makes it into the "educated, enlightened" category.

Put it this way--would the movie be meaningful if instead of two guys it was a guy and a girl? Or would it just seem like another retelling of Romeo and Juliet?

Out of Africa was a dull movie, a good book, but dull movie. What made it bearable was imaging Lothar von Richtofen, brother of the Red Baron, chase Robert Redford around the peak of Kilimanjaro.

... and thinking 'heroin' every time she talked about 'coffee'.

I've watched 'Gandhi' two or three times.

The comparision Ace strives for - one which features two dudes, no sex, gun fights or anything to direct the viewers attention away from the maleness on the screen is the classic gay film "My Dinner with Andre.

Even the waiter is a guy.

I don't think the movie would have been enhanced had Wallace Shawn dropped his fork during the salad course and blown Andre Gregory.

,

Epobirs wrote: "Not only do hetero men not want to view other men having gay sex, they by and large don't want to view other men having straight sex. Thus the immense popularity of girl-on-girl scenes at all levels of porn from late night cable fare to XXX stuff."

*TOTALLY* disagree with you, pal.

Want proof that this is wrong? Two words: Spice Channel.

You *need* to see penetration for it to be real, or else it's just play-acting in your mind.

As vaguely distasteful as it is for another heterosexual to have to stare at a cock, porn without penetration is like the Chicago Bears without their offense on the field: nobody wants to see it, but the game is incomplete unless it's there.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Kelly,

So the fact that so many of us don't want to see it is proof of how good it is?

*snicker. chortle* Monty said crack.

Hey Sean, Bruce Willis is supposed to be making a pro-war film based on Yon's stories.

I just care to see if, hear it, or even hear about it

Monty, do you own spurs?

Just curious.

if the art is high quality. The better it is, the more excuses people have for avoiding it. Or belittling it. Or even destroying it.

That is an extremely general statement. How about some examples?

And some of the so-called high quality, well-received art I have seen is nothing more than anti-establishment shit full of supposed shock value rather than any display of talent.

Dave,

The basic story may be universal (most stories are; someone said there were six or eight basic plots in all fiction) but that doesn't mean the actual movie is.

Sid & Nancy was a "universal" love story on a basic level, but the characters were hardly the sort people identify with.

Not to say that gays are like Sid. Or Nancy. Or even Johnny Rotten or Malcolm MacClaridge, or whatever his name is.

But there are "universal" stories and "universal" characters-- the Everyman or Everywoman sort of character, who is basically not really a character at all, just a good-looking actor playing a type that most people can identify with.

Obviously, here, we don't have truly universal characters. That's not to say that straights can't identify with them; just that it's harder to do so. The basics of their problem -- love denied -- is identifiable, but the specifics of it simply aren't.

Plus, again, there's that whole explicit-gay-sex thing.

It's not that a straight man couldn't watch that and still wind up enjoying the film. It's just that he's less likely to enjoy the film, and he knows that in advance, so he's unlikely to see it all.

I suppose I might actually see this, but again, just to review it for the blog. it would be "work" of a sort, not actual entertainment.

Now, that may not seem like an accusation of homophobia . . .

The danger that the gay community faces here is the potential loss of their biggest weapon. No one like to be called "homophobic," just as no one likes being called "elitist" or "racist." But at some point they move the goal posts enough that you're driven to say, "WTF!?! I guess I am homophobic."

If being vaguely repulsed by the films subject matter makes me a homophobe, then so be it. And if I'm a homophobe, then I guess I can just stop listening to the rest of the complaints of the gay community. Sounds kind of nice, actually.

it seems that even liberal critics can't seem to stop talking about guys fucking another in the ass of all a sudden

That reminds me: stop addressing me in your e-mails as "Ennis."

We're not going camping, okay?

What percentage of men really want to go see any love story, let alone one about two gay dudes? Love stories are enjoyed more by women, no? And what's in it for women if both lead characters are only interested in what women don't have? Face it, the movie caters mostly to gay men. And people who are into sheep, I suppose.

I'm still holding out for a movie about two old people falling in love and fucking non-stop. I want a the most graphic depiction imaginable, and if you don't want to watch it with me YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE, YOU BIGOT!!!!!!

Ace wrote: "It may be a feature as regards "courage" or "edginess," but as regards actual box-office performance -- sorry, it's a bug."

I believe John Derbyshire would call it "buggery" instead.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Y'know, reading comments I came up with the perfect tagline for this movie-

"Brokeback mountain, where the men are men and the sheep are, for some strange reason, not nervous at all."

Do these pudding eaters clean out the barn every day so they'll have an excuse for the condition of their clothing?

Funny you should mention Brokeback Mountain and Out of Africa together; my wife absolutely loved OOA but has never gotten me to watch it not for lack of trying. Similarly she has told me several times that she thinks BBM is a "really important film to see", but as with OOA I have no plans on accompanying her to see it.

This kind of film is a bit like sushi - raw fish is supposedly very good for you and lots of people find it to their liking, but sushi bars are never going to threaten the market shares of places like Wendys, Burger King, Unos, Houlihans, TGI Fridays etc. Similarly there will occasionally be an Out of Africa, Brokeback Mountain etc which will make some money and please the film critics but will never see the kind of earnings commanded by a Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman etc.

Bottom line - society has "evolved" about as much as it's going to on minority issues. People can go see films like OOA and BBM without fear of being lynched or shunned, but that's about as good as it's going to get; tolerance will get you heard but it's never going to equate to enthusiastic, visceral endorsement.

As for your gun-to-the-head scenario - I suppose I'd see whichever of the two is shorter (sounds like that would be Brokeback Mountain), since I expect the prospect of a female syphillis sufferer to hold about the same appeal as two gay dudes discovering their suppressed gayness in a tragically not-gay-sympathetic world.

If Ace is right, and a movie must have characters with universal appeal, then this edgy film about forbidden love is in for a rough time.

Ace wrote: "It's not that a straight man couldn't watch that and still wind up enjoying the film. It's just that he's less likely to enjoy the film, and he knows that in advance, so he's unlikely to see it all."

Agreed. This is a much harder (ahem) sell than a similar non-gay story. That said, your post kinda wavered there when you brought in the whole "Merchant Ivory crap" aspect, which I think is a different issue vis-a-vis connecting with audiences than the whole gay thing.

Meaning, I think that America is growing more comfortable with gay themes to the point that gay-themed movies aren't necessarily automatically "Merchant Ivory crap."

However, "Merchant Ivory crap" is usually very, very gay.

A+B=C, and all that math, you see.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Monty, do you own spurs?

Well, as Tex Ritter sang:

I've got spurs that jingle jangle jingle
As I go ridin' merrily along
And they sing, 'Away, too glad, you're single'
And that song ain't so very far from wrong

A movie (Out of Africa) critics insist you should like but that you really don't. (And one wonders if the critics actually liked it either, or just thought they were supposed to give it an enthusiastic review.)

yep. boring as hell.

As I recall, the score was quite good, the cinemetography (if I'm using the right word there, the "picture-making") was very impressive. And I don't hate Meryl Streep (or didn't - geez, isn't this movie like 23 years old?). But it bored the hell out of me.

I couldn't believe that Out Of Africa beat out The Color Purple for the Oscar that year, either. Purple was a *vastly* better movie and has held up far better over the years, in my opinion. And I'd bet if you look at the sales/rentals of the two movies over the years, Purple would beat out Africa by a mile.

(I'm waiting for compos or Michael to chime in with some kind of "thou protesteth too much" crack.)

Nah. That's just too easy. You did enough on your own.

Very thoughtful post, Ace. I concur with you and Monty: the "cringe factor" experienced by straight men (and women) when exposed to explicit gay sex should not be considered homophobic condemnation. It's just natural, in the same way most people will cringe at the sight of numerous other sexual practices that some folks are attracted to.

Unfortunately, gays will never accept this, because the necessary implication is that their sexual practices are, at some level, unnatural and therefor not on the same level as straight sex. Worse, the "cringe factor" implicitly puts gay sex in the same category as other cringe-inducing practices like pedophilia or sadism. It suggests that gay sex is, in fact, deviant. Which it is, if we take deviant to simply mean "deviates from the norm," without the overtone of moral condemnation.

Hence, the "social construct" fantasy, the accusations of homophobia, and the attempt to politicize a natural reaction such as the likely avoidance of Brokeback Mountain by many moviegoers.

Gays are at war with reality, and they are not going to stop. They are not content to be accepted; they want to be sanctioned as normal.

Even if, for example, they win the legal right to marry, adopt children, etc., I don't think this is a battle that they are ever going to win at the cultural level.

Curse you Monty! Now I have that GD song in my head. I even caught myself whistling it. Blast you!

I actually wrote an e-mail to Mickey Kaus last night regarding the critics and Brokeback Mountain. I am a gay man who lives in Chelsea, New York and went opening night to see the film. The film, like all Ang Lee films, is beautiful to look at. The scenery is magnificent. In fact, I was overwhelmed by the mountains and rivers and outdoors scenes. The movie itself was slow and tedious and boring for long periods of time. Michelle Williams, who plays the wife of the "quiet" gay man is particularly heartbreaking, but her performance alone does not make up for the film's slowness. There is no cathartic emotional moment in the film. And, there are too many false endings, or moments where the movie should have ended. I told my friend immediately after the film that the critics were overrating this film - no doubt because their liberal, left-leaning sensibilities (remember the reviews for the Passion) lead them to this conclusion. The movie is a gay man's Woody Allen film - elite critics love it; masses don't get it. I say save your 10 bucks and go see "Walk the Line." Now that was a great movie and Phoenix ain't bad to look at (for the gay crowd).

C'mon, people. We're not talking high art, here.

Why am I always the "heavy" who needs to remind everyone what we are really dicussing?

Let's see, should I see a film about men who define themselves by the fact, for one reason or another (rolling eyes), participate in anal penetration with other men?

NO!

"As vaguely distasteful as it is for another heterosexual to have to stare at a cock, porn without penetration is like the Chicago Bears without their offense on the field: nobody wants to see it, but the game is incomplete unless it's there."

Actually I always thought of that as kind of a placeholder for the viewer, i.e. a psychological avatar or vehicle that allows the viewer to imagine him (or her) self as one of the participants, i.e. a means to an end not the ultimate target of one's desire.

Yeah, I agree with Dave. I'd rather see a movie written by Larry McMurty than anything with Redford in it.

I hate to have to defend Robert Redford, as he is a complete asshat, but he has made some damn fine movies in his day. I am willing to cut him a little slack for Jeremiah Johnson. He was also Roy Hobbs. And Condor. And the great Waldo Pepper. And whats-his-name from The Sting.

I sat through a few gay cinema indie movies in the 90s when I was in film school. I don't see what is so "important" about BBM. . .the story has been told 1000 times already: Two guys meet, an attraction is felt, they consumate the relationship, the relationship is discovered by disapproving neighbors/family/friends, the two lovers are shunned, then either they end up being together or not. There are 20 movies with this same plot at your local indie video store. The only difference between those movies and BBM is the fact that you can catch BBM at the local cineplex.

THAT is what bothers me about the idea that this film is especially culturally significant. If this movie is "important" then so is Herbie Rides Again.

Unfortunately, gays will never accept this...

They'll never accept it because the sex-act is what defines them. To be revolted by homosexual sex is to reject the person.

don't get me wrong DB, I don't hate Redford either, at least, not his work. He has made some good films.

OOA wasn't one of em.

I don't hate Redford, but he hasn't made a good film in years. And all of his recent work is shot with that annoying 'vaseline on the camera lens' look to hide the fact that the guy has more wrinkles than a shar pei.

If I want to see a gay love story, I do believe I would be better off going to one of the DC gay bars. At least that way there would be alcohol served, music and the chance to talk to straight women (if I wasn't married that is). As it is, it can't compete with Harry Potter, Narnia, Kong and another animated Disney story.

If that makes me a bigot then so be it.

Now if it was a gay love story involving Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron, I probably would have camped out for tickets. If that says something negative about me, fine, put your complaint in an envelope and shove it up your ass because I don't care.

David Cronenberg made a film several years ago called Crash and dealt with people who got sexually aroused by being in car crashes. I got dragged to see it by some friends of the "dazzling urbanite" school of thought. I found the film all but unwatchable: pretentious, pointless, and -- to me -- untimately morally abominable. The film seemed to want to make the point that these deviant sickos were people too, and clearly wanted me to sympathize with them; and yet I could not. I was left completely cold, and got to the point where I felt absolutely hostile towards the whole enterprise.

Later, when I had thought about it, I decided the problem was not so much the subject matter as it was the approach: i.e., the film was not entertainment but rather apologia for a given viewpoint. It was the Director and Writer using the medium of film to nag me about my biases and values. I have seen gay-themed movies that didn't provoke this kind of reaction in me: Philadelphia and And The Band Played On are two examples. But these movies followed a dramatic arc and were actual stories instead of didactic exercises.

Brokeback Mountain is probably an okay movie (although I consider any sex scene involving Jake Gyllenhallenhyeelldelerndhall to be retch-inducing, even if it included a female; an all-male J.G. scene would just be too much for my stomach). But it strikes me much as Angels In America did: a media-created morality tale that is in actuality a very middle-of-the-road picture.

I hate "forbidden love" movies. I always end up pissed off at the lovers at the center for being idiots or just sucking it up and getting on with life. Yes, I thought Romeo and Juliet were idiots, and knew Mercutio had to die because he was upstaging them. I saw some frou-frou movie based on an Edith Wharton book, and felt absolutely no sympathy for the characters who made explicit decisions that would keep them from ever being legit lovers. As the matriarch in the movie said, "You made you bed, and now you've got to lie in it."

Now, this is not to say that I don't like chick flicks in general (I am a chick after all), it's just that particular chick flicks piss me off. I prefer romantic comedy.

I seem to recall the Left using the term 'cowboy' as one of derision for the last 5 or so years. You know, about as long as Bush has been in office.

So cowboys suck.

Until they start sucking cock?

As for the movie, I intend to see it when it comes out on video. I also expect to enjoy it, but will undoubtedly decide that the ONLY reason it got all the accolades it did is because it's about gays.

I'm guessing Phoenix gets fucked out of another Oscar. So to speak.

...and this seems like a good opportunity to re-post this intriguing amateur gay-themed production which is no doubt both funnier and more well-made than BBM.

We all have to do things we don't want to do in life. Therefore, I really think you shd see this film, Ace. It's going to be talked about from now unitl Oscar's whether you like it or not, so you might as well see it so you can counter intelligently. You also profess to be interested in screenwriting, so might as well see what sells these days. Take Karol with you -- she can be your beard.

Excerpt from a gay shepard movie I would see...

Young Buck: "You hypocrites! You all do it! You know you do! How else do you satisfy your pudding needs?"

Old Man in Saloon: "Now, now, son. Take it easy. That's not what we meant."

YB: "Huh? What did you mean then?"

OMiS: "What you got thar is the Sheriffs sheep, and he's a Viking."

YB: "Oh. [long, inward, self-searching pause punctuated with a blank stare] I guess I'd better put 'im back then, huh?"

OMiS: "Yep."

Ace: I just can't write all that crap a second time.

That's okay. I'm cool with that. It was probably more of your PC - walking on eggshells - metrosexual hooey.

How many more gay themed posts will there be?
In the last two weeks, you've written more about gays while slamming the male chauvinists (Derby and Klein) than Andrew Sullivan.

I bet a google search on "gays gone wild" would render AoS at the top of the search page.

And then there's the whole explicit-gay-sex thing. Many gay men don't seem to understand that straight men are put off by the idea of sex or intimacy between men.

Wait. So I shouldn't be jerking off during the Lethal Weapon movies?

FTR, I'm not the same kelly as:

Kelly at December 14, 2005 03:09 PM

Me? I'm still trying to understand what all of ace's continued references to "bugs" and "features" mean in this post about an explicitly gay themed movie.

Just think of me as an ersatz-Derb.

Oh, and Kelly (not me)?

Trust me, no amount of brow-beating and shame-inducing-rhetoric can generate an audience - especially if the art is high quality. The better it is, the more excuses people have for avoiding it. Or belittling it. Or even destroying it.

WTF?

Wait. So I shouldn't be jerking off during the Lethal Weapon movies?

Depends on what scene, really.

Many straights will see it, just as they saw Ghandi, because it's a movie an educated, enlightened person should see.
Rat's ass.
That sentence sounds so much like the liberal mindset, that the 'thinkers', the 'enlightened' amongst the wretches will be able to see the 'truth', and convert over to their wonderful rainbow coalition.
I saw Ghandi because of the historical figure and story involved, and for the period piece it was.
Hollywood for soooo long has been trying too hard to push the gay lifestyle upon us, in tv and theaters.
Gays are friends and family to me.
I just got my hair cut by a friend who's headed to NY with his boyfriend, and I'm hoping to that they get to see my gay Uncle's cabaret (jazz) show there.
I don't need to be pushed into an acceptance of gays!!! And I think we can all agree, the more you try and push people into anything, the more they resist.
I don't like to see heterosexuals engaging in public make-out sessions or worse. So it goes for me with the homosexual version.
I couldn't help laughing out loud at the English Patient, until I had to get up and leave the damn theater, telling the date that I'd be at the bar next door if she wished to stay. She came drinking with me instead.
I won't be seeing this movie.

When did we go from "shepherds" to "sheepherders?"

I've lived my entire life west of the Rockies and most of it in rural settings, and for as long as I can remember, Sheepherders were people who herded sheep, shepherds were gusy in bathrobes with towels on their heads, standing around the manger at the front of church on the last Sunday before Christmas.

There will me as many Ace of Spades Homo Lifestyle posts as Ace's wants to write, Timmy.

Damn It All: Most of this post just got zapped.

This is God's way of telling you to go to the Bareback Mountain movie. Don't piss God off, Ace.

gay gay gay gay gay.

I reached my quota of gaydom.

What are they going to do, pin our eyelids open and make us watch 24 hour marathons of gay sex until we are tolerant enough for them, I'm sick of it

I thought Attenborough did a decent job with Ghandi

See, it's also like this - if I'm going to see a movie with a bunch of fellers wearing cowboy hats and riding horses, I don't care if the characters are gay or straight, there'd better be lots of shootin' and killin'.

I'm serious. If it's got cowboys (sorry - sherperds my ass, if they're wearing those duds it's a cowboy movie), then it by definition it cannot be a love story and be interesting (again, I don't care if it's gay or straight).

With one exception - The George Washington McClintock/Katherine McClintock "love story" in "McClintock," and that only because John Wayne ends up spanking a completely humiliated Maureen O'Hara with a freakin' iron frying pan in front of the whole town.

Huh. Did I just really type that? I'll be damned. I guess that in addition to being a homophobe, I'm also a misogynist. I'm learning a lot about myself today.

And then there's the whole explicit-gay-sex thing. Many gay men don't seem to understand that straight men are put off by the idea of sex or intimacy between men.

There goes my whole self-image. What the hell WERE mt high school years about, then?

Wait. So I shouldn't be jerking off during the Lethal Weapon movies?

Whoops! Yet another reason for zealously guarding your anonymity.

Depends on what scene, really.

Any scene with Danny and Mel and no (ewwww!) girls is fine ...

You know what gets me hotttttt? It's that little guy saying uh-k!uh-k!uh-k!uh-k!uh-k!uh-k!

Allah wrote: "Wait. So I shouldn't be jerking off during the Lethal Weapon movies?"

Huh. Brings new meaning to the phrase "Diplomatic Immunity!"

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Most disappointing thing about this movie? That Larry McMurtry did the screenplay.

You can call me a prude, or a prig, but that's not my point. My point is that a really great writer is reduced to banking on crap to make a buck.

What would Gus say?

Re: "educated, enlightened people feel they should see Ghandi"

I don't know why there's such confusion about this. I only meant that SOME people see movies because they are cultural signifiers, i.e., you go to some movies to show that you're the sort of person who goes to that movie.

Some people go to movies as homework. A lot more people saw Schindler's List, for example, than actually WANTED to see it. They felt they should see it, like they feel they need to eat their brussel sprouts.

So, what about all the gay cowboy/sheepboy jokes that are inevitable? Or is the PC crowd going to put the kibosh on that, too?

Before any one gets all gobsmacked on me, I have had gay friends and family for years. My former brother in law and his boyfriend used to conspicuously leave copies of The Advocate laying around when family would come over.

I don't have a problem with gays. I have a problem with liberals trying to define my indifference to the gay lifestyle as de facto intolerance of it.

I won't being seeing Bareback Mountain because a) I have lived in the West damn near all my life and b) my current mindset can be summarized by this: if liberals are falling all over themselves praising something--anything--my first instinct will always be: fuck 'em, I'll pass.

Uncle Jefe: And I think we can all agree, the more you try and push people into anything, the more they resist.

Not Howard Dean. All you need to do is whisper something in his ear that sounds vaguely anti-American, and he'll repeat like a Led Zeppelin bridge on a broken record.

Some people go to movies as homework. A lot more people saw Schindler's List, for example, than actually WANTED to see it.

And there you have it. A lot of people don't really hate America, but think that they should.

For acceptance. And so they get invited out. By the cool people.

BTW, Allah, sending a test email after clicking on your presumably fictitious address (none@none.none, duh) generated a message on my computer that Mcaffee virus scan had shut down and I should send an error report to Microsoft.

How did you do that?

Do I now need to run a virus scan, before you pillage my computer for all my bank accounts and PINs?

Do I now need to run a virus scan, before you pillage my computer for all my bank accounts and PINs?

You only need to worry about your private stash of gay porn and any email with the subject "Man Sex."

Ok, here is my different take on it.

I won't be seeing this movie for the same reason I stopped watching R rated movies years ago. Graphic sex. I wince at the thought of watching two men having sex, but then, I wince at the thought of watching a man and a woman having sex. (with apologies to Ace and Dave, but really..... It's just stupid) Sex was was meant to be had, not watched.

I remember seeing a movie when I was young that depicted a couple in the dark on a bed, backlitwith billowing sheers behind them, and kissing and kissing and then fade away. It was the sexiest scene I have ever seen. No. It was more than sexy. It was sensual.

Which is way better. Even better? Stop watching Hollywood tell us how to live and start living.

A heterosexual guy will be interested in the male lead for reasons other than sex. A heterosexual guy will be interested in the female lead for sex. A heterosexual guy will be interested in a movie because he thinks the story will be good. How hard is this for anyone to understand?

I'd be right there if it were a movie about Cowgirls instead. I would find that plot compelling and much more plausible.

I guess if you would've written
"Many straights will see it, just as they saw Ghandi, because they believe it's a movie an educated, enlightened person should see. "
there wouldn't be the confusion.
It didn't sound like something you'd say, but boy, it was said.
Eh.

Lesbain sheepherders more plausible?

RWS:

Sex was was meant to be had, not watched.

Men have a pretty rudimentary limbic system, RWS. "Sensual", to us, is when women wear a tee-shirt and no bra. Or Daisy Duke-style denim shorts.

My own personal movie-rating system automatically allocates one start to any movie where a bare female breast is exposed. I don't care how lousy, badly-written, or boring a move is -- unclothed wimmens gets it at least one star. Which is why a flick like Caged Heat is still on my all-time favorite list, as is The Mack.

Men's brains work in this way: "I would like to have sex all the time. As this is not possible for a variety of reasons, watching sex is an acceptable short-term substitute." We're not complicated or nuanced in that area, RWS -- our cerebellums are geared to either have sex or think about it about 90% of the time. It's evolution. What can you do?

I may be wrong, but I don't remember all this fluttering and finger-wagging from gay men when "Bound" came out a few years ago. Which was a great flick in and of itself; the lesbian scenes were just added bonuses. It leads me to believe that much of this ado is presumptious drama-queenery (I know that's a made up word).

I can't type. Lesbian sheepherders.

Anyway, I think I would have enjoyed a movie about people who work mostly out doors. It would have been nice to see the scenery, the horses, etc.

RWS: I remember seeing a movie when I was young that depicted a couple in the dark on a bed, backlitwith billowing sheers behind them, and kissing and kissing and then fade away. It was the sexiest scene I have ever seen. No. It was more than sexy. It was sensual.

I have to say that I agree.

This is actually why I'm such a big fan of old movies. There are scenes in some of those movies that absolutely blow me away in terms of sexuality and sensuality. Ever seen The Barefoot Contessa? Just as an example...

The interesting things is that once you see some of this stuff, porn in whatever degree begins to bother you a bit, because it's style without substance.

And if you can watch Lauren Bacall in To Have or Have Not and not get a little tingle, then you're brain has simply been bludgeoned into submission by Marey Carey and Jenna Jameson. I'm telling you - great T/A, no sexy-ness. At some point, it's just T/A. And it's boring.

I'll just slink off now and watch Brokeback Mountain.

There is something wrong when (in a democracy) the 98% of people who are not gay are not force-fed gayness in all its aspects. A true liberal democracy would make everyone be gay.

A true liberal democracy would make everyone be gay.

We live under the tyranny of the minority.

See, if I were a movie producer, talking to some dumbass leftie writer, the discussion would go like this:

Writer: So we open on this woman, see, and--
Me: Is she naked?
Writer: Who, the woman? No. No, she's outside. She's like a government agent. Anyway--
Me: She could be naked, you know. Like a naked ninja or something.
Writer: Um, no. She's just this lady. She's not even a major character. So anyway, she goes up to this house and rings the bell, see, and this is where we introduce Monica Belucci's character--
Me: She's gotta be naked. Right out of the shower. Or -- ooo! -- better yet, with this dinky little towel on, you know, and it sort of falls off while she's talking....
Writer: No, no, no! Monica's not naked! No one's naked!
Me: So...what's the point, then? Is the whole movie going to be this boring? 'Cause if it is, you can feel free to get lost right now. I can pull a better movie out of my ass than what I'm seeing in this script, Poindexter.

Yeah. That's it. Russ Meyer's spirit lives on!

If the distributors of the movie really want to Make a Statement and Change Minds, they should give this a wide opening out here in the hinterlands.

(DAMMIT. There's no way to talk about this without some sophomoric subtext.)

Anyway, my suspicion is that it will be targeted at a few select urban theaters where it's guaranteed to make a huge per-screen average due to its proximity to the communities who'd be most interested. In Houston, that's Montrose, so I'm guessing the River Oaks Theater or the Angelica downtown will host it.

My further suspicion is that it will NOT open out here at the Willowbrook 72 or however many screens it has, mostly because it will do no business at all. Not merely because suburbians aren't that interested, but also because they have other things to spend money on, such as dumping their kids into Narnia or Potter in order to get some Xmas shopping or spa time in.

This will actually play into the cultural elitism, because they can make the movie difficult for many run-of-the-mill heteros to get to the theaters and still be able to point to low total grosses as proof that we still need more "educating". It's win-win.

An aside: I didn't much like Ken Tucker at Entertainment Weekly. I fucking despise him now that I read that clip about the movie.

I'm listening to Michel Medved who points out that the movie is anti-marriage. These two men are married and have children and abandon their families to go boing in the woods while the sheep watch. Msg: Always better to follow your heart and not your obligations.

Mark and " ", there was a movie made about lesbian sheepherding persons, and it was called "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues", which reminds me, does anyone here know the difference between camping and sodomy?

i saw brokeback on saturday night and i didn't care for it. not b/c of the sex scenes- they're not explicit at all. but just b/c there was no development of heath & jake's relationship. so while society not accepting their relationship kind of sucked, i didn't really care b/c they hadn't really convinced me they were in love. also the fact that they each marry and have kids, thereby ruining their wives lives made me dislike the characters even more.

of course when i mention this on imdb, i'm called a homophobe. yeah ok, the pc police apparently says that unless you blindly endorse this movie, you're a homophobe.

Msg: Always better to follow your heart

Dammit, man. The message is Follow the SHEEP!

You know, it just occurred to me that this stuff is so rife with humor and subtext precisely because serious people do not and cannot take it seriously.

of course when i mention this on imdb, i'm called a homophobe. yeah ok, the pc police apparently says that unless you blindly endorse this movie, you're a homophobe.

Exactly. You can't take this stuff seriously.

well, it's not like Hollywood is is all family oriented for heaven's sake.

Monty,

Sometimes I wonder how men and women live together at all.

I might go to see a homosexual love story if it featured two attractive women. Sorry Rosie, sorry Sully.

Steve in Houston,

I think you must live close to me. I use to go to Willowbrook, but now it's just a skanky teen hangout.

Boy, I really can't type. That was suppose to read boinking in the woods.

Eh,

I'm not gonna see it. It just isn't a movie where one can plausibly withhold their disbelief.

Shepherds don't fuck other shepherds.

Not with sheep around.

"I might go to see a homosexual love story if it featured two attractive women. "

Just two? I saw one called "Where the Boys Aren't Part 32" and it was crawling with attractive women, and you could tell they really liked each other. So if Brokebutt Mountain is anything like that, it would be crazy.

well, it's not like Hollywood is is all family oriented for heaven's sake.

unlike AoSHQ, which has a 43.6% higher family content orientation.

I have on occasion watched Will and Grace. Does that exempt me from the Homophobe tag if I have no intention of even watching the previews of Hebrokemy Back Mountain?

Sometimes I wonder how men and women live together at all.

Because the other option is extinction?

I saw one called "Where the Boys Aren't Part 32"

32. Which just goes to show.

rws, you're probably right. And I agree with you about the Willowbrook Theater. There are some bad seeds down there. I think that's just as much a reason for the dwindling box office receipts as anything else - an unwillingness by theater owners to police the only people who seem to be spending money on them.

I usually go to the Edwards Marq-E down at 610 and Katy, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go to see a flick. Getting downtown or to the River Oaks is a pain in the ass.

(Oh, crap. See what I mean about sophomoric?)

...if you don't see Brokeback Mountain, the stealth messaging goes, you hate gays.

Hate is such an ugly word....I loathe them.

Case in point, the fag driving a Jeep Cherokee with a license plate that read...M4M Guy...fully-equipped with the following stereotypical..."I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it!" faggity fag fag crap....a West Hollywood, Rainbow Flag and Human Rights Campaign sticker.

I had to follow this jackass over Laurel Canyon into Hollywood until he inevitably pulled into the one of the most notoriously fag apartments buildings in WeHo. There was no mistaking that his entire identity was clearly that of a fag nature.

All total...I'd say that I witnessed about 10mins worth of faggotry. So there's absolutely no way in hell that I'm gonna sit through 90mins of it.

Not to mention having to watch groups of fags and fag couples goin' all Oprah when the fag sex starts on-screen.

In fact, by simply writing this, I feel so fagged out that I'm gonna go stare at my pussy in a hand mirror for awhile.

Sex was was meant to be had, not watched.

Oh, suuuure, in fantasy Golden Unicorn Happy-Land, maybe.

What color are the skies in your world, RWS?

(kidding of course)

There are people who do believe in unicorns. They're called strippers.

Instead of Brokeback Mountain, I would recommend watching the King of the Hill gay rodeo episode. Basically the same subject and you will save about 90 minutes.

And if you can watch Lauren Bacall in To Have or Have Not and not get a little tingle, then you're brain has simply been bludgeoned into submission by Marey Carey and Jenna Jameson. I'm telling you - great T/A, no sexy-ness. At some point, it's just T/A. And it's boring.

RWS:

See, I just hate guys like DeeDaGo. He's acting like he's a sensitive guy who's all in touch with his feminine side and such. This can actually work if your good at it. Monty knows what I'm talking about.

Truth is, he's just another pig who is coming on to you. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you?

Ace,

It's called Southern Skies and I think you need to get out of that city full of full women who obviously don't appreciate a good sense of fun and get down south where the women are sweet as sugar and are down with the whole 'marriage and children come first' thing. Unlike those NYC career Sex in the City skanks.

Yep, the south is what you need Ace sweetie.

Call me old fashioned, but I find it utterly amazing that no one thinks adultry is wrong in this thread. I am so sick of liberals making adultry seem sexy or a form of love. This movie is just like almost all Hollywood productions: loveless desire and constant betrayal. I have nothing but contempt for Sullivan and all the other liberal advocates of adultry whether it is gay or straight sex. There isn't anyone in that production that isn't degenerate and disloyal except the wife. And it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The reason that the hollywood left is degenerate has everything to do with thier betrayal of our troops where ever and whenever possible, with sympathetic protrayals of adultry (e.g. Madison County) , with stories based on characters so selfish and self centered that no sacrifice ever has to or should be made. And it is just beyond the realm of their imagination that a husband and wife would be willing to forgo their desires for others and do it joyfully. What a bunch of jerks.

Jesus save us all from reading too much into the culture wars. Okay first of all if you don't want to see the movie, don't see it, if someone tells you you should see the movie shake your head and say sure or no thanks. Second before you critize the premise read the book, it's free online and a decent read if you want to find out what happens to people that fall in love but can't do anything about it. No biggie, like many people have said it's been done before. Third most of us gays like the movie because it reminds us of the first time you fell in love with a straight guy and found out that even if he has sex with you it's still not going anywhere and you have to find a way to move on. It doesn't matter to the people that want to see this movie if it's a blockbuster, it doesn't matter if it makes a ton of money (it did break even already though) Like all movies what matters is that we can relate to it and eat popcorn while watching it.
I had to listen to so many baby boomers tell me how Forest Gump reminded them of all the horrors they lived thru and the good times but I still thought it was a dumb movie. You all are just playing Hollywood's game of free publicity. If it didn't mean anything to you, you wouldn't be talking about it. let it slide guys let it slide. I for one am just trying to catch it before it on the big screen before it goes to DVD.
As for you trying to tell gays that your not interested in watching gay sex, I know that already, and no I'm not going to think ill of you. I will think ill of you if you pass another state law telling me that I can't watch gay movies. Is that your next step?

Sex was was meant to be had, not watched.

Exactly!!

To really appreciate it, you need to be a participant. Sex is definitely not a spectator sport.

Pendleton, here's a thought for you, since the New testament says that God considers you married when you have sex, than they were commiting adultry by getting married after having sex and falling in love. The whole story is about what that cost them and what they were afraid of. The movie doesn't make heros out of them it kills one of them off and leaves the other one divorced and lonely. Think on that before you go telling gays not to get married.

RLS, I suppose that's why porn is a struggling multibillion dollar industry that has never needed a government handout?

I will think ill of you if you pass another state law telling me that I can't watch gay movies. Is that your next step?

Good God, what a stunningly bizarre leap of logic. This after over 130 comments, none of which remotely suggest that anyone wants to censor anthing. What would lead you to even ask this question other than a persecution complex and a penchant for hysterics?

Here, I'll play your game: Go see your movie. I'm fine with it. Just so long as you don't come to my house and give my children gay porn to read. Is that your next step?

Well, is it? Is it?

Warden, touche` after all, we are all a bunch of kid fucking perverts. And if you hear about some group wanting to ban the movie you let me know....

Ok, this needed linking.

About Pornography

Say TUA,
How about if I just wear a pair of sunglasses with mirrored lenses??
Bring Miss Sondra...

He's acting like he's a sensitive guy who's all in touch with his feminine side and such. ...Truth is, he's just another pig who is coming on to you

I am a pig.

And I may be coming on to RWS.

But I am not, repeat not, sensitive.

RWS:

You know what I think is amazing? That even after millions of years of living together, women still don't get why men find pornography so interesting. Women get all cerebral about it, and want things like "cuddling" and "tenderness" and "real names".

Men like the following things about porn:

1. Good looking naked chicks. This is obvious and shouldn't need further explanation.

2. Porn allows men to vicariously experience something that almost never happens in real life, which is to say a good looking naked chick doing freaky stuff, and with little effort involved on the part of the guy. (The guy is usually some ugly tattooed greaseball, but this gives hope to the most unattractive males that maybe, just maybe, there is some silicone-enhanced blonde slut out there who likes our looks well enough to get the freak on after the utterance of only one or two banalities.)

3. Getting sex in the real world generally has a lot of complications attached to it -- even if you're the world's biggest asshole and don't care how the chick(s) feel about it, you still have the logistical issues: traveling to the chick, taking the chick out for dinner or talking her into cooking dinner, the endless droning small-talk (all the while plotting the move), and the endless wondering: "Will she or won't she? Is now the time? How long do I have to listen to this yapping before I go insane?" Even if the culmination is satisfactory, the build-up takes a lot of effort. All you gotta have with porn is a DVD player, a couch, and some free time.

4. No blowback. No crying, accusations of caddishness, no "do you love me?", no "let's go out tomorrow with all my stupid friends".

5. You can rent a porno for under five bucks. I don't think any date in the history of the world ever came in that cheaply, even back in the caveman days.

(Understand, I got all this at second-hand. I myself am far too immersed in my scholarly pursuits and Clean Living American Men meetings to peruse such filth. But one hears things, you know.)

TIM: Think on that before you go telling gays not to get married. Read the post. I don't give a rip about gay marriage. What I do care about is you nut cases showing heterosexual marriage in negative terms. The whole tragedy according to this movie is that this wonderful guy ruined his life by marrying a woman instead of a man lover. It is typical that gay activists only care about their selfish desires and put all other considerations aside. The tragedy is not that there wasn't gay marriage or that these men couldn't form a lasting relationship. The true tragedy is that nothing really matters to you or your hollywood lefty advocates but your pursuit of gay rights. The selfcenteredness of your pursuits is replayed time after time in movies and in your lives. What would have stopped this guy from continuing to pursue his "love" without marrying the woman? Doesn't it ever cross your self absorbed consciousness that the woman was wronged by this man? Or that in fact had lover boy not married the woman, there would have been no problem?The answer is of course, no. All that matters is advocating your gay agenda.

Sorry to come late to the game, but I for one hate movies that glorify adultery in the name of "love". I can't stand watching movies like that, where the fact that one or more of the participants is married is supposed to make it even more "romantic." What a crock!

I also loathe movies with sex scenes. I agree with Rightwingsparkle that sex is to be had, not watched. I don't know any guys who would rather watch a porno than actually go to bed with a real woman. Porn is only a billion dollar industry because a real woman wouldn't go to bed with a man who would look at such stuff when he's not with her.

This is why I don't go to see ANY "romance" movies, let alone gay ones.

And last, I really hate just about any movie that Hollywood can't stop raving about. They give awards to crap like Magnolia and American Beauty, that are supposed to be so insightful and poignant, when their "insight" is something I realized waaaaay back while I was riding my dinosaur to high school.

I get few enough movie dates with the hubby, I'm not going to waste one on this movie when it has such a low probability of making me happy.

since the New testament says that God considers you married when you have sex

No, the New Testament doesn't say that. If you have sex with somebody other then your spouse, the New Testament calls that adultery or fornication.

Actually, Brewfan, Paul says that you should not unite yourself with a prostitute as one flesh, because you become united with her for all of eternity (and thus defile the temple of the Holy Spirit).

If you want, I'll chase down the reference for you.

Well, I'm typing too fast, obviously. The previous "Brewfan" post was me, not him.

Anyway, I looked up the biblical reference:

(1 Cor 6:15-20 NIV) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! {16} Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." [Michael: In biblical terms, "one flesh" is an explicit reference to marraige.] {17} But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. {18} Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. {19} Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; {20} you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Tim, you're full of it. The conversation was not about disinterest in seeing the movie but rather the criticism leveled against us for being disinterested.

For people like Sullivan it isn't enough to be tolerated. They must be loved by one and all. (Which gets back to Tammy Bruce's writing about narcissism.) I have no interest in seeing 'Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants' (or whatever its called) but I can expressed this without being told I have an underlying hatred of 14-year-old girls because of it. And the issues in that movie apply to a far larger segment of our society than those in BBM.

The narcissists live in a black and white world. If you don't them and those things they love it can only mean you hate them and would do them harm if given the chance. This attitude is ultimately self-destructive. If those who will never love you are told the only alternative is hate, they just might take you up on the offer. You would have been far better off not being on their radar in the first place.

Dave, I'd have to disagree right back. While the hardocre porn features plenty of penetration, it is the women who are the center of attention throughout most of the movie.

I cannot claim to be a porn authority but I've seen a fair amount. Two common scenes are women by themselves (moving from bare hands to toys as the rating goes up) and women having sex with each other. This typically takes up at least a quarter of the movie and often much more. What is lacking in virtually every porn flick I've ever seen that wasn't plainly targeting a gay audience was men having any vestige of physical interest in each other. At best they are there to act as surrogates for the presumably male audience. I cannot recall ever hearing mention of men so much as giving one another a handj0b in mainstream porn. (It may be out there but if you have to do much looking it doesn't make much of a counterargument.) And softcore gay male material on the cable venues appear non-existent. The closest I've noticed is embedded in otherwise serious material like 'Six Feet Under' and some movies.

Sure, there is some freak show material where one woman takes some ridiculous number of men but it is the minority by a large measure. The bulk of mainstream porn revolves around women with men in secondary roles and easily replaced with inanimate objects that only make slightly less money. Before AIDS the was a certain fashionability to male bisexuality but that era is long passed.

I'm a gay man and I've seen Brokeback twice. I saw it because I read the short story a few years ago. And the story and the movie reveal parts of me in ways I have never read or seen before. So I'll cop to my self-interest right away.

If it were about two women, --with all due def to my lesbians friends-- I would be galactically less interested.

So if straight dudes don't wanna go, let em be. It's a movie, not a Re-Education Seminar. And anyway, I don't want to hear some straight guy guffawing at things that make him anxious and uncomfortable, just when I'm sobbing into my popcorn.

Sometimes my people get a little hysterical.

well Michael, If that doesn't kill this thread, nothing will.

You da man, EssEm. Even if you like other men.

well Michael, If that doesn't kill this thread, nothing will.

If necessary, I can follow up with genuine Batman quotes from the original Adam West TV series. This is not an idle threat. Many of you know that I am capable of this.

Don't do it Michael !!!

Please...for all of us...DON'T.

Michael,

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing but in any event...eat me!

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing but in any event...eat me!

Brewfan:

Hate to get all Bible-technical, but I'm disagreeing.

You quoted:

since the New testament says that God considers you married when you have sex

Then you said:

No, the New Testament doesn't say that. If you have sex with somebody other then your spouse, the New Testament calls that adultery or fornication.

My point was that Paul clearly considers sex with a prostitute a defilement of your body, a uniquely pernicious sin. According to Paul, the essence of this sin is that your body has been bought by Christ and is now the temple of the Holy Spirit, an incalculable gift to you, which you have dishonored by becoming "one flesh" with a prostitute. In Biblical terms, that means that you have entered into a "married" state with a hooker, a condition which has spiritual ramifications that are irreversible.

He says as much in the Corinthians passage I cited above by using the phrase "one flesh."

Want proof texts?

(Gen 2:24 NIV) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

(Mark 10:1-12 NIV) Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. {2} Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" {3} "What did Moses command you?" he replied. {4} They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." {5} "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. {6} "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' {7} 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, {8} and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. {9} Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." {10} When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. {11} He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. {12} And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

(Eph 5:25-32 NIV) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her {26} to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, {27} and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. {28} In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. {29} After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- {30} for we are members of his body. {31} "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." {32} This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Here's a tip, Brewfan. Do not challenge this PK on Bible issues.

And, eat me.

To put this another way, "marriage" from a Biblical perspective has nothing to do with legal or religious ceremonies or any other kind of official sanction. The physical act of becoming "one flesh" is what matters.

So, now you know why Ace's sister is special to me.

I still have some Batman quotes ready. I've already copied them to my clipboard.

Ace doesn't have a sister. He does have a couple of brothers he "fairied up."

How is it in here, you know, talking to yourself?

Cause it happens to me in real life, but never on a board ...

You can thank DeeDaGo for this:

Penguin: "Do we live under a code of law or a costumed madman's feelings?"

Judge: "Point well taken, Mister Penguin."

You can obliquely slam me all you want, but the truth of the matter is that I am actually reading you talking to yourself.

And frankly, I think that we live under a costumed madman's feelings.

I keep thinking that at some point Ace will ban me on the grounds that I am way too fucking weird, at which point I can start the Banned By Ace Association™ on some other blog.

So far, the guy just seems immune to weirdness. I'll just have to keep pushing the envelope, I guess.

And, eat me.

Michael, you seriously need to form a Bible study group. Or start a ministry or something. You could call it "Michael's Bible Rants, Bitch!" Sign me up.

So, now you know why Ace's sister is special to me.

See? I'm gonna remember the theological point you made. I think you have a calling!

Monty and Epobirs have touched upon a topic that's been covered here before, but never adequately.
That is to say, porn, and why men dig it.
(Mind you, 'touched upon' and 'adequately' in a sentence about porn is entering dangerous territory...)...(entering, heh heh...)...
I say that it comes down to the male drive to please the woman.
Porn is really about the male wanting to please women.
Pleasing the woman has to be one of our oldest primal instincts, as it is with all animals.
We want to breed!!
Why else would these porn movies, seemingly all about the man (or men), be filled with moaning women acting as if they're being pleasured? THAT is what turns on the male!!
Why do women fake orgasm?
Same thing, to make the male think he's doing his job, PLEASING THE FEMALE.
If we please the woman, we have more chances to mate with her, therefore potentially extending our genes.
And jeans.
And penises.
Like Dick Cheney.

If we please the woman, we have more chances to mate with her

UJ, you are solidly on the rock of rationalization. Let me just add that you forgot the whole, "I think making it with two women would be hot because they would both get the whole range of feelings, because if they feel good, then I will have done my job."

But, rationalizaing or not, I agree.

Right UJ. Applying your logic, swirlies and anal sex is all about pleasing women and procreation. lol! God! No wonder the world is so fkd up!

Michael, you seriously need to form a Bible study group. Or start a ministry or something. You could call it "Michael's Bible Rants, Bitch!" Sign me up.

LOL! Actually, I form Bible study groups at my church all the time. I'm locally famous for my rants. Some of the favorites are "Why Christians Are Like Vampires", "Mummies and Zombies, the Living Dead are REALLY AMONG US", and "The Church of the Holy Raygun -- Christianity As A Radiation Weapon". (The latter rant goes into a discussion of the theological significance of the "shields up" command from the Star Trek bridge.)

Of course, I begin these classes by extracting a pledge from all participants that they will not tell the pastor what I am talking about. This is sometimes difficult, when there are elders present. I belong to a very conservative denomination.

So why do women fake orgasm?
Why all the moaning, groaning, 'oh yeah, baby, oh give it to me' in porn?
It is to make the male feel he's pleasing the woman.
Why does he want so bad to please the woman?
Why do male animals have the brightest plumage, antlers, mating calls, dances, why do arbor birds build the killer nest?
The display is to attract, the pleasing to mate and mate again.
Figure it out, anonymous at 11:36pm.

You answer my question: How does swirlies and anal sex have anything to do with pleasing women or procreation?

You didn't ask the question, you twisted the argument as posited to make a statement, anonymous.
If you're stuck on swirlies(?) and anal sex, that's your gig.
The world's fucked up for a lot of reasons.
If you attribute it to my logic, damn, I'm one powerful force.

Gordon, interrogating an 18-year-old girl: "It's no use, O'Hara. She won't crack."

O'Hara: "Ahh, what she needs is a good slap on the wrist!"

Gordon: "That's enough! You know I'm violently opposed to police brutality."

What makes this joke is "violently opposed."

Too bad that Commissioner Gordon was not in charge of Gitmo.

Michael, you had to come back and drop more Batman...you madman...
DeeDaGo, I'm not rationalizing.
I just want someone to argue the psychological reason porn is so popular.
There's no need to rationalize it...it's a money-maker, that's rationalization enough.
What's the hook?

Michael, you had to come back and drop more Batman...you madman...

Yes.

Bookworm (about the Dynamic Duo): "Our bats have flown the belfry and are still squeaking."

Good night.

Question: Does anybody know the source of the Kaus/Sullivan feud? The two have the longest running -- and one of the nastiest -- feuds on the blogosphere. Its gotten to the point that I'm starting to suspect that they pick topics (such as this recent post by Kaus) just to find a way to piss the other person off.

Don't misunderstand, I find the feud extremely entertaining. In fact, the only time I read Sullivan anymore is shortly after Kaus makes a cheap -- but funny -- shot at Sullivan, and only to read Sully's cheap -- but "gobsmackingly" unfunny -- response. Still, I'm very curious. Any theories?

Sorry guys, I'm a chick and frankly, that type of movie is boring. Prefer something that blows up or at least has a lot of humor. I won't pay to be propagandized, won't pay to be lectured, and I won't pay to be bored. "Important films" are a red flag. I'll determine what is important, Thank you very much. The internet is a lot more fun.

I thought the film was shocking!

Madonna
http://www.madonnasthoughts.blogspot.com

My impression is that gays are really good at networking and tend to have a lot more money than I do. Why don't they just charge double for tickets to this film?

Play to your strengths.

I will not see this film because it is directed by ANG LEE, the king of slow pretentious films. HULK was pure torture to sit through. SO painful that I am suprised Amnesty International has not whined about USA showing this film to Gitmo Detainees.