I was pretending to laugh to signify I had understood his 681st reference to Leopold and Loeb. And I noticed the other members of the audience were doing the same.

Woody Allen is your Margaret Cho.

By the way, just got an e-mail from Downtown Lad. He says he's going to kick your ass for writing this post.

Might just be me but I laughed at Purple Rose of Cairo. Wasn't great but it had its moments.

Proposed: Narnia is to conservative critics what BM is to liberal critics.

And Stealth sucked so bad.

So dude, why obsess over a POS movie nobody we think highly of will see?

Why, because it "breaks" a cultural taboo? Breaking cultural taboos got old in the sixties. Let you wallet talk for you.

"Proposed: Narnia is to conservative critics what BM is to liberal critics."

While I have not seen Narnia, I think I can safely say the following: Shut up you stupid piece of excrement!!! Narnia is culturally imporant, and if you're too dense to realize that, then you may as well vote Nader and ride the floats at gay pride parades!

Well, ride more floats than you usually do, that is.

I was pretending to laugh to signify I had understood his 681st reference to Leopold and Loeb. And I noticed the other members of the audience were doing the same.

you know what's funny? when i saw brokeback in the theater, the audience was laughing at the sex scenes, whooping a la arsenio, clapping at a random moment when jake is aggressive w/his father in law... and this was supposedly an "enlightened" upper west side audience in nyc.

OT:

Please keep on voting for Free Thoughts. Voting will end tomorrow.

http://weblogawards.org/2005/12/best_european_blog_nonuk.php

I loved Crouching Tiger, and I liked Hulk well enough (mostly because I saw it on a long, boring flight and believed ahead of time it sucked more than it did). I'd go see this one just for the eye candy, but I don't want to encourage the bastards.

p.s. By "eye candy" I mean the mountains, of course. Not tight little dimple-cheeked cowboy bottoms.

p.p.s. Firm and ripe, with just the merest downy coating of peach fuzz.

p.p.p.s. Because that would be the wrong impression entirely to leave you with. Whoo!

you know what's funny? when i saw brokeback in the theater, the audience was laughing at the sex scenes, whooping a la arsenio

Yeah, that's fucking annoying. It really is like a Margaret Cho concert, laughing to signal to everyone else that you're down with "the movement."

The last time I experienced something like that was in college, when the campus center screened "The Muppet Movie." All sorts of pomo wankers showed up to sing along, partly out of genuine childhood nostalgia and partly out of apprehensive irony about indulging in something as cheesy as childhood nostalgia. Get fucked, is all I have to say to them.

I assume we all realize that if BM doesn't win Best Picture this year, it'll be nothing but Hollywood-isn't-ready-for-gay-love articles for months afterwards.

Almost makes me hope it wins.

"Brokeback Mountain, for this season at least, is the new black."

On South Park there was an episode about metrosexuals. The night after it's airing Mat and Trey were on Jimmey Kimmel Live. During the couch interview Trey said "Gay is the new Black"
Your statement reminded me of that. It also made me think that maybe everyone should go see this movie. With a little luck it will give us a world filled with manly homosexuals,(gay cowboys) rather than one filled with prissy hetero-sexuals (metroblah)

As for ang lee. seen crouching tiger, and hulk. . .ever go someplace nice with someone very obnoxious? Thats what I think of Ang Lee movies, it's like watching a pacific sunset, and just as the ocean goes reflective like glass and your date farts. I think thats about right.

WaPo: "[A] herd mentality started to sink in, like a gay church praying at the altar of "Brokeback Mountain."... The message is: If you're a self-respecting homosexual, you had better get in line...."

I liked Crouching Tiger. The Icestorm sucked. But, com'on, Ace, go see the movie. Someone has to fall on their sword. Don't be a snob. To be fair, you shd see it before you pan it. Under normal circumstances I wd say pan away. But, if you are going to write post after post dissing it, at least go see it. You can close your eyes during the sex scenes. Or, better yet, you can bury your face into Allah's strong shoulder. He won't mind. :) Might be a bit difficult with a fag seat between you, but you're' both big guys and if you lean in toward each other . . .

I'll see BM with Ace on the following conditions.

1. We leave at least two fag seats between us.
2. He stops addressing me as "Ennis."
3. He stops asking to take me camping.
4. He agrees not to try "the popcorn trick" on me.
5. He agrees not to point at the screen during explicit scenes and whisper, "Gee, that looks like fun, doesn't it?"
6. If, in spite all of the above, we find ourselves engaging in sexplay anyway, I get to be the man.

Apparently, there are five other gay-themed films up for Golden Globes this year.

How I've longed for Hollywood to turn into Broadway.

I think Bareback Mountain is going to have some competition .

Also, why would they name the movie "brokeback mountain?" I won't bother, but the title is too easily manipulated to make a weak joke referencing homosexual sex.

It is just not for them-- not to partake in, not to watch.

I'm not a straight guy, but that is nonetheless exactly how I feel about it. And I agree with you that it's a visceral, almost instinctive distaste.

Not objectively disgusting, not disgusting in the abstract--I just don't want to see it. It's not for me, and I'm not sure why, exactly, my presence is required to validate it. If we agree that it's okay, that it's not inherently INvalid, what does my watching it do, exactly? What value does that add?

I don't know if more women dig the man-on-man thing than I was previously aware of, or if this is a recent development, or what, but on the Television Without Pity forums, there was a thread recently about a scene on Desperate Housewives (okay, shut up) involving two gay male teenaged characters. And MOST of the participants on that thread, all women, were posting comments like, "Ooh, I wish they'd actually shown them kiss!" and so on. Whereas, I'm kind of grateful they didn't. Okay, very grateful.

I'm still wondering if they were like your Woody Allen audience members--"I've got to show how down I am with this"--or if they really meant it. Anyway, I missed the memo on that one, I guess.

Woody Allen licks balls. Sully reportedly can't wait to see him do it on film.

BTW, great post, Ace.

There was a scene in one of the later seasons of "Sex and the City" where the girls get together to watch some gay porn. Yeah. Just hanging out, eating ice cream from the tub, watching one guy go balls deep in another guy's ass while they laughed and hooted.

So, you see, gay sex? It's offically in.

There was a scene in one of the later seasons of "Sex and the City"

Well, that explains it. That must be the memo I missed--the one from all the 40-something caricatures of women who love shoes.

Yeah, I can't understand why I didn't give that one more priority. But there, I can't get too superior. I just admitted to watching Desperate Housewives.

Ace, I will never, ever, ever forgive you for saying one nice thing about Annie Hall. Have you forgotten the insult?

Ace, this post is so full of truisms, and made me chuckle so much that it serves as some sort of validation to my vote for this blog in the 2005 Weblog Awards. Thanks for making me proud!

Did Ace sneak out to see the movie?

Allah,

Sex in the City, huh?

By the way, how'd the castration work out for ya?

What happened to the Sullivan Freakout advisory.????

Ace,

See here for a pretty good take on the"liberal straight guy" syndrome vis-a-via BM.

As for the quality of BM itself, I kept myself fairly skeptical regarding all the plaudits, but then I heard Michael Medved give it 3.5 stars, and nobody can say he's the kinda guy who gives rave reviews of a movie to maintain his liberal street cred.

Dude? Let's be honest: There already is a "Gay Gone with the Wind." It's called Gone with the Wind.

Leslie Howard is NOT gay... not that there's anything.... best line of month.

Kudos.

I just heard a clip of the wife, Alma, confronting her husband. Bleh. It sounds terrible.

Now, they are playing another clip. Bleh.

WaPo: "[A] herd mentality started to sink in, like a gay church praying at the altar of "Brokeback Mountain."... The message is: If you're a self-respecting homosexual, you had better get in line...."

I'd say the message is that "gay"/"liberal" is the new religion. The imagery invoked is no mistake.

And given the self-righteous, missionary zeal of these jack asses, I'd say that David Horowitz's thesis that the modern Left is "in bed with" Islamo-fascism is beginning to make sense. In both cases, neither philosophy can stand on its own, but requires liberally applied force or the threat of force to ensure fealty.

"This is our gay 'Gone With the Wind"...

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn...

"Proposed: Narnia is to conservative critics what BM is to liberal critics."

we don't have the amps on eleven

Dude? Let's be honest: There already is a "Gay Gone with the Wind." It's called Gone with the Wind.

That's only funny if you're not from the South.

I guess so - it's got all of the elements: the sets, the characters, the strong female lead, the beautiful, ineffectual men. But in all honesty, it simply doesn't get that billing in the South.

I'd have to say that there are a lot of other candidates for this honor. "Spartacus" comes to mind.

But maybe I'm being defensive.

One of the things that has me leery about BM is the fact that in just about every review of it that I've read, the reveiwers have taken great pains to say something along the lines of, "It's not just a gay love story. It's something that everyone can relate to."

I just find it a little odd that everyone would feel the need to point that out to prospective audiences. Seems a little fishy, if you asked me.

we don't have the amps on eleven

There were five articles on Narnia at NRO the day it opened, Dave.

Five.

DIT: we don't have the amps on eleven

There's the definition of the gay media:

Our amps are ALWAYS on eleven ....

There were five articles on Narnia at NRO the day it opened, Dave.

I think that NR had a deal with the distribution company. They got the marketing posters and put them on the cover of the last issue, used the art online, and got every journalist to do a piece on it.

There's the definition of the gay media:

Our amps are ALWAYS on eleven ....

This is one of the truest statements ever made. Just take a gander at the massive freaking out over the Ford advertising controversy.

You think NR got any money from that deal, Dee? Or were they just doing Jesus a solid?

You know who I really would like to see BM with? Hewitt.

You think NR got any money from that deal

Dunno. They might have - does Newsweek or Time get bucks from doing free advertising for Speilberg, for example? If it's de rigeur, then it would stand to reason.

Just pointing out that if they did the promo on the first day of Narnia, that it had in fact been going on for several weeks and in several mediums.

"Anyone who's truly honest with themselves has to admit that Woody Allen stopped being funny shortly after Annie Hall..."

Oh come on Ace, "Bullets over Broadway" and "Small Time Crooks" were both hillarious!

There were five articles on Narnia at NRO the day it opened, Dave

Ok, fine Allah. NRO had the amps on eleven.

Anybody else in the "conservative critics" category? I'll allow I wasn't paying a lot of attention that day, but my point was I'm not hearing the eleven like you were.

I just find it a little odd that everyone would feel the need to point that out to prospective audiences.

Yes. Such reviewers assume right off that "prospective audience" equals "homophobic red-state retards who probably believe in 'God' and 'country' and all kinds of backwoods redneck hillbilly stuff like that."

You know, they wouldn't have to educate you like this if you weren't so all-fired stupid.

You know who I really would like to see BM with? Hewitt.

You're just being mean. If you were seriously interested, you'd want to see it with heartache-Andy.

Yes. Such reviewers assume right off that "prospective audience" equals "homophobic red-state retards who probably believe in 'God' and 'country' and all kinds of backwoods redneck hillbilly stuff like that."

And what's so funny is that BM is about .... red-state retards who probably believe in 'God' and 'country' and all kinds of backwoods redneck hillbilly stuff like that.

I want to see it with Hewitt because being able to watch his reactions would totally redeem the experience of having to sit through two guys humping.

"Whoa, whoa. Check it out, Hugh. He is tearing that ass up. Oh, man. Gyllenhaal won't be able to walk."

I generally can't stand Woody Allen, but Crimes & Misdemeanors is an excellent movie.

But what would you do if HH sort of slid his hand over to your knee, and sort of did the body lean ...

He wouldn't. He'll be too busy thinking, "You know what this movie could use? A talking lion."

I'll not apologize for whatever support Narnia got in the MSM, especially by NR. They are fuliflling mission - their base is conservative first, and conservative Catholic second.

Forget the whole argument of balance. That's crap. It's just nice to see a movie debated on its merits, some of which are pretty clearly religious in nature.

Frankly, I find it encouraging that a movie like LWW could even be made, and I'm not talking technologically. I do not think that it would have been even 4-5 years ago. It's a good thing.

And that's not to say that BM should not get made. Let it get made, but it is certainly less of an aberration than LWW.

That non-apology apology was mine ...

I can only speak for myself, but watching two men have-at would probably put me OFF sex for a few days.

What happened to the Sullivan Freakout advisory.????

Ace noticed a couple of hours ago that the humor of the Sullivan Freakout Advisory was being questioned in a post 12:26 a.m. today post at by Dave at Garfield Ridge. To summarize: there is a building sentiment that the joke has jumped the shark.

In case you haven't noticed, Ace is heavily dependant on Dave to determine what is current.

OK, my link sucked, I'll try again with this one.

In case you haven't noticed, Ace is heavily dependant on Dave to determine what is current.

Is that code for "Ace and Dave are lovers"?

And you only need to scroll down a little way to Sobek's question.

i thought this brokeback movie came out awhile ago, as much as ive heard about it....and i dont even pay attention to movie news.....aiming for saturation i guess

i saw a few ads about narnia and some discussion on conservative blogs, but nowhere near what im hearing about this gay sheepherder movie

Ilyka - I don't want to see it either. I'm not going to fling Bibles at them and shriek "Desist, foul sinner!" but like you said, it just isn't for me. I'm not interested. I think we're in the minority among the under-forties, though, if the number of fangirls writing male/male slash and enthusing over how cute two guys would look together is any indication. I have just never gotten the enthusiasm. Granted, these are online fanbrats we're talking about, but the sheer number of people who, say, hate a straight fictional character's loving interest for thwarting the One True Love that is another (male) fictional character is boggling. They aren't all teenagers, either. Where did this come from? I can't imagine girls and women thinking this forty years ago.

Re the movie: I might actually rent it once it's out on DVD, mostly because I have a weakness for Ang Lee movies - I've never seen one I didn't enjoy. (Granted, I never saw the Hulk movie). He's done a "gay" story before: "The Wedding Banquet." I liked that one a lot, but then it was a comedy. "Brokeback Mountain" sounds a lot more earnest, which isn't usually a good sign.

What's annoying is the saturation media coverage of these message movies. Syriana, Good Night AGL, and BM are all movies that get tons of free press. This is an event movie premier, for some reason, probably given the sort of coverage that star wars got. How many movies have to beg, fight for, and ultimately pay for this kind of publicity.

And noone watches.

Good analogy about the ATM...

Where did this come from? I can't imagine girls and women thinking this forty years ago.

I really, really, really have no idea. I mean, I had the boy-bands-who-wear-makeup-are-teh-sexy phase that I think most women my age went through, but I never thought, "You know what would be really hot?--If Nick Rhodes and Simon Le Bon kissed." I was probably too busy thinking that it would be hotter if Simon Le Bon and I kissed.

Although, this is why I don't get the male thing with lesbian porn either. If it's a straight couple on screen, I can imagine I'm the girl, right? And a guy can imagine he's the guy. So why do guys find two women together so fascinating? With whom are they identifying?

I've heard varying answers to that one from men, like, "Because really, who wants to see another guy naked when you could see two chicks naked instead?" (hmm, point) to "Because I'm imagining that at some point, they're both going to invite me to join in" (which, real lesbians don't work that way, but okay, it's just a movie, I get it) to "I dunno, we just do."

I can't figure it, but I can at least figure it a little better than I can figure why women would want to see two guys.

You know who I really would like to see BM with? Hewitt.

Heh.

SOLID B+

Uh, psychologists say because men find themselves, or are afraid of finding themselves, attracted to the male of the couple.

I can't figure it

Me neither, frankly. I hit fast forward until a guy shows up to give that girl a proper boinking.

I'm thinking I need someone in the scene that I can identify with.

I suspect a big part of the lesbian porn enjoyment by men is the perception as other men as competitors (rather than onscreen surrogate) but the second woman isn't seen that way. Now, if these are really lesbians that doesn't work but the depiction in most cases is of bisexual women with the underlying theme that all women are secretly bisexual. This is a great bit of fantasy fulfillment because it allows for all the benefits of a strong marriage while still keeping the potential for a threesome in reserve.

Completely removed from reality but the part of the brain driving this isn't very good at reality. It just knows naked aroused woman good and more more naked aroused women better but naked aroused man bad.

I think much the same removal from reality accounts for the girls who write slash fiction but would not be interested in watching men doing it for real. What can be erotic intellectually can be utterly repulsive when it confronts the senses. I can recall reading some gay porn that left me wondering if I had any real desires for gay sex but it turned out in real life that the answer is a definite no. Men just don't engage my sense as women do. I can conceive of finding a situation erotic but cannot actually draw positive stimulation from the real thing.

There's no identification phenomenon in male arousal. You are just objects for us to use and then discard. No offense. Girls into watching two guys have either got to be Japanese, have brain tumors, or it's one of those things where girls all suddenly claim to be into something because it was decreed by someone. Maybe they could be German.

The two worst things you could ever say about any movie are: It was directed by Ang Lee and, it has Heath Ledger in it.

Does it seem like there are more directors now who are making movies for themselves? There are the Ang Lees, and now there are a bunch of super-nerds who just want to remake something they've been obssessing on since they were twelve and maybe get to meet Leonard Nemoy or something.

Of course, 'Good Night and Good Luck' was going to get tremendous acclaim because it reiterates every lie Hollywood and much of the media has been telling itself ever since the 50s.

It's amazing to think how different history might be if someone less self-destructive than McCarthy had been around to lead the charge back then.

There are the Ang Lees, and now there are a bunch of super-nerds who just want to remake something they've been obssessing on since they were twelve and maybe get to meet Leonard Nemoy or something.

And then there is Ron Howard, a/k/a Opie. Have you ever seen anything involving Opie, as an actor or director, that you didn't enjoy?

I suspect a big part of the lesbian porn enjoyment by men is the perception as other men as competitors (rather than onscreen surrogate) but the second woman isn't seen that way.
Posted by epobirs at December 14, 2005 09:37 PM

Interesting theory . . . yes, interesting. I'm going to stick with the "four boobs for the price of two" hypothesis, myself.

adolfo nailed it, it's twice the boobage

pretty simple, really

It's sensory overload. All the pleasures of a woman's body -- times two. Curves on curves.

It's the difference between apple pie and apple pie a la mode.

It's the difference between apple pie and apple pie a la mode.

No, that's just straight masturbation vs. Hetero sex.

Lesbian sex is more TWO apple pies mashed together.

Two for the price of one. In other words, you're cheap. That plus you're all latent homosexuals.

That plus you're all latent homosexuals.

Christ, lady, don't start this again when I'm the one who's going to be blamed for it.

Besides, that's only Munger.

The Wizard of Oz is not gay. I think you're thinking of the stereotype that gay people love Judy Garland movies. True, but they usually don't include Wizard of Oz in the bunch.

DeeDaGo wrote:

It's the difference between apple pie and apple pie a la mode.

No, that's just straight masturbation vs. Hetero sex.

Lesbian sex is more TWO apple pies mashed together.

More two apple pies mashed together, eh? I see you're making as much sense as usual.

I think the whole "what's the appeal of lesbian scenes to men" thing has been done to death. Here are all three valid answers:

1. There are no guys around to ruin the scene.

2. There are twice as many girls.

3. It's a situation a guy would like to join (as opposed to one where, you know, there's another guy around...blech).

That pretty much completely covers it.

witnessing male-on-male intimacy is never really comfortable for most straight men

Most women find it uncomfortable as well - at leastthe women I know do.

this quote
"what's in it for women if both lead characters are only interested in what women don't have?"

made me laugh. This guy does not know women. At all.

I am definitely looking forward to the film, even though I typically don't like to go to tear-jerkers. I like romantic comedies a lot, but in general I don't want to pay someone to scare me or make me cry. But this movie is different. It's supposed to be really emotional and gets you thinking long after it stops. (I liked "Hotel Rwanda" a lot for the same reason, but God I don't know if I could force myself to see that movie again- too much trauma)

Anyway, the titallation factor is also definitely there for me (we women don't get our fair share of hot man-on-man, so we have to get it where we can find it). But it's not even going to be that explicit, which is one of the reasons why I dont get the giant kerfuffle from straight guys.

But don't feel bad if you don't see it. I never saw the "English Patient" even though it won the Oscar (and I'm sure it was magnificent) but it's just not my cup o' tea.

we women don't get our fair share of hot man-on-man

You can have mine, honest. Here! Take it!

Most women find it uncomfortable as well - at least the women I know do.

wow, what planet do you live on? Who do you think writes all the "slash" fiction on the internet?

Christ, lady, don't start this again when I'm the one who's going to be blamed for it.

ilyka, for the last freakin' time, stop calling us all gay.

That pretty much completely covers it.

Well I guess we can all go home now. Thanks for filling us in.

I think the reason guys aren't into male-on-male porn is because instead of trying to identify with one of the characters, they're actively not identifying with them. The squeamishness is caused by their brains trying to wriggle out of their ears and go someplace safe and warm that has boobies.

For not being into male on male porn, you sure bring up the topic enough at AOSHQ.

I have good news, and I have gooder news. first, Anne Hathaway gets nakes, and, there's also a 1 minute intermission, perfect for going to the bathroom or taking a quick nap or sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming loudly as you shut your eyes till your girlfriend (who's ridiculously turned on) throws you on the floor of the cinema and does rude things to you.

(can you believe that's the cleaned up version, where I took out the GHB humor?)

Your claim that straight men have a "visceral, innate aversion" to male intimacy and specifically male-male sex doesn't quite fit with history: The Greeks and Romans were quite comfortable with the notion that men could lust for other men (young men, granted - usually younger than 20 but not always). Those of formerly straight guys have gotten action from a way too many "straight" guys to believe that innate aversion crap. It's fine if you need to tell yourselves that you're innately averse to it... but it sounds less like a rock-solid observation of human nature and more like the masculinity-obsessed psyche trying to tell the far-less-selective libido how it should feel. Women have no problem admitting they find other women attractive - and part of the reason they admit it so readily is likely because men like to hear that sort of thing. I really doubt men, who are much more driven by visual stimuli in the romance department, are actually so insensitive to the beauty of the male body. Of course, maintaining this little illusion of masculine distaste for male-male intimacy doesn't make you a bigot. It just tends to make you uptight, insecure, and tense all the time - protecting a sensitive and artificially constructed masculinity will do that...

Can we go an entire day without hearing the women are all bisexual meme? The only people pushing that crap are men. You don't even hear gay women trying to sell that b.s. I mean, really, if you want to sell men are faggots do it on it's own merits.

I mean to say that there is, in most straight men, a response to it that makes it subjectively off-putting.

It's like bragging that an ATM just gave you $60, no questions asked.

It's not that most straight guys dislike gay guys, or disapprove of them, or find them immoral perverts, or such.

Can we go an entire day without hearing the women are all bisexual meme?

No. Honestly, no. In all openness, no.

There are few flames of hope left to us. Do not quench our last light.

Cause it gives Ace night sweats. And that's a good thing.

Hey, kipp. Don't project, okay?

On South Park there was an episode about metrosexuals. The night after it's airing Mat and Trey were on Jimmey Kimmel Live. During the couch interview Trey said "Gay is the new Black"

Frankly, SP already predicted this film in one of their episodes...the one where SP hosts the Sundance Festival...the big movie was about two gay cowboys there as well...except there was also pudding.

Also, why would they name the movie "brokeback mountain?" I won't bother, but the title is too easily manipulated to make a weak joke referencing homosexual sex.

I will bother...
Bareback mountain..you know you want to say it. You know alot of gays will probably say it as well, and snicker.

And you know right now, someone in Santa Monica is working on a gay porn video with the title BAREBACK MOUNTAIN as we speak...

someone in Santa Monica...

And that someone often posts here under the alias "Ace".

You mean they're making it in Santa Monica too?

[off to the side]"CUT"

Hey, Allah. You make a somewhat interesting point about Narnia hype, but keep in mind the following: Chronicles of Narnia was amped because the property has been around for half a century, sold 85 million copies, people grew up with the stories, and people were worried about what the Shrek guy would do with it, or if it would be rigorously de-Christianized in an insulting way as say the real story of Amistead was. (Camille Paglia hit Spielberg bigtime for that.)

The only way Brokeback Mountain would compare is if it were written half a century ago, sold 85 million copies, the Farelly brothers were selected as the directors, and there were rumors that the whole "gay theme" might be dropped.

"Those of formerly straight guys have gotten action from a way too many "straight" guys to believe that innate aversion crap. It's fine if you need to tell yourselves that you're innately averse to it... but it sounds less like a rock-solid observation of human nature and more like the masculinity-obsessed psyche trying to tell the far-less-selective libido how it should feel."

Hmmmm, I could either engage you with witty repartee, or I could just note the "gayness" dripping from that comment.

Well, that decision was easy.

Dude, that was so GAY!

When gay activists say they just want "tolerance" for their sexuality, they really mean they want "acceptance".

When gay activists say they just want "acceptance" for their sexuality, they really mean they want "celebration".

When gay activists say they just want "celebration" for their sexuality, they want you to admit that deep down, you know you're really gay.

I'm just fine with tolerance and acceptance. Not real big on the "celebration" part, because I don't think any inherent characteristic should necessarily be "celebrated" (read: enforced education). I seriously, honestly couldn't care less where people stick their puds (or dildos, in the case of lesbians).

But please, PLEASE don't expect me to opine about how great it is that you're doing so.

C'mon, caspera. The reason Narnia has been hyped is because it's a Christian allegory.

The reason Narnia has been hyped is because it's a Christian allegory.

Is that good or bad?

Really, Allah, has Narnia really been hyped more than say Harry Potter?

Kipp brings up the example of the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks (I'm not as sure of my footing with Roman society) generally did not see the older man-younger man (boy really) relationship as romantic love. There was affection, admiration of form and such, but the vast majority of the relationship had more to do with power and social status (on both sides)than not. It is also interesting to note that while those relationships were condoned, should a man allow himself to be penetrated by another man he risked being stripped of his Athenian citizenship by law if he were found out.

But blow jobs were okay. lol!

Actually, Anonymous, if you want to be precise, dry-humping was the preferred modus operandi.

I was really quite surprised last year that my university's Classics department textbooks went into so much depth on the subject.

Of course, maintaining this little illusion of masculine distaste for male-male intimacy doesn't make you a bigot. It just tends to make you uptight, insecure, and tense all the time - protecting a sensitive and artificially constructed masculinity will do that...

Whoa! Never have I actually witnessed a guy outing himself like that.

But then, maybe I just have "a sensitive and artificially constructed masculinity."

Of course, maintaining this little illusion of masculine distaste for male-male intimacy

I missed this. I actually missed this huge target for fun and ridicule.

This is the biggest load of crap I've heard today.

I may be uptight, insecure, and tense, but it is absolutely not going to be cured by watching two guys go at it, much less sitting in a theater watching an audience watch two guys go at it.

Truthfully, I don't have a distaste for male to male intimacy. I'm fine with two guys having deep discussions, life-altering moments, etc. I'm talking Sam-Frodo moments.

That is a far cry from two guys trying to get into each other's pants, for specifically non-life-altering moments. And to be clear, I am a litle uncomfortable with that, but by far I'm more bored by it. Movies about gay relationships basically bely the fact that Hollywood and certain screenwriters cannot deal with male-male dialog unless it degenerates into sex. And why highlight the gay sex unless 1) you want to highlight homosexuality as a cause/raison d'etre, or 2) you were gonna make a movie about guys having significant moments together, and the only way to show intimacy was to have them bend over a tree.

Boring.

I prefer movies about gladiators.

have any of you who are so "squeamish" actually ever seen 2 men kiss? It's really not that different or weird. There's humans, you know.

Anyway, the tone of this whole dicussion reminds me of the fights I would get in to with a boyfriend I had in college who was a ridiculously picky eater. He would never try anything new, wouldn't eat spicy food, refused to eat chinese food, and the list went on and on. It was so obnoxious, and made him seem so, for a lack of a better term, "childish".

Since that relationship ended, I run, as fast and as far as I can, from any man who has weird food issues, cause that type of mentality flows into other areas of their life.

I buy the argument that one might not want to see the movie because it is a romantic drama, and you really don't like slow-moving, acting/dialogue dramas, and you'll fall asleep. But if you already like those kinds of films, (e.g. maybe you saw "A History of Violence" or "In the Bedroom" or "Shawshank Redemption"), and your only reason to not see "Brokeback Mountain" is the gay element, that's just bizarre and weird to me. I'm not buying it.

kipp

I have to concede your point that it is possible to construct a society where guys on average are sort of into other guys, because such societies existed in the past. Which society -- the Romans' or ours -- hews closer to man's innate tendencies is a difficult question. Roman society was comfortable with a whole range of behaviors your average guy today would find disconcerting: vomiting during dinner so one could eat another course is just one of many examples. (Read Satyricon for a contemporary account of other perplexing Roman practices.) My subjective experience is that I am convinced I have an innate distaste for such behavior, but I guess if I had lived at the time, I would have dug it.

kipp
sorry kipp, posted as you when I meant to post as me.

I think you "not buying it" is just bizarre and weird.

...your only reason to not see "Brokeback Mountain" is the gay element, that's just bizarre and weird to me.



Your reasonings are bizarre and weird to me. If the first thought that comes to me during a preview of a movie is "God, that looks horrible", than there is a high probability that I won't see the movie. This flick looked horrible, hence I will save myself $10 and skip it. All the manipulations in the world will not change that.

Hey, Ace, can you get us back to bitching at each other about Terri Schiavo again?

have any of you who are so "squeamish" actually ever seen 2 men kiss?

Yes, and...?

It's really not that different or weird. [They're] humans, you know.

Oh? I thought they were hummingbirds. My bad.

What's yer point, femme? I've seen people taking a shit too, doesn't mean I want to watch a scat film.

Actually, if the Farrelly brothers were directing, I'd be in the theater right now instead of waiting for the DVD.

Femme, you can have my share as well. All I can really say is that I don't get the appeal. It's like hearing about a movie which centers around one man's love of gardening. Nice if you're interested. Deathly boring if you're not. Why pay $10 to be bored when you can sit at home for free?

Reality check time.

People with five o'clock shadow making out.

Hairy Penis + Hairy Anus = Disgusting. Ewww.

Do I need to draw y'all a map.

Is "Timmy" Ace's id?

All right, I'm a straight woman and I have no desire to see gay porn. But, I admit, I find the idea of gay romance to be very hot (especially when the characters aren't obviously gay). I think I first realized this when Tom Selleck kissed Kevin Kline. Even though they were twice my age and even though it was played for laughs, I still thought, damn.

BM could have been a great movie for me - yeah, for me, as a fan of this kind of stuff - except for its "forbidden love" storyline (I hate affairs, gay or straight), all the crap surrounding it, and the fact that neither actor does a thing for me.
What a sad, sad waste.

I completely understand why people not interested in it don't want to see it. That's just simple logic. But c'mon now, why do you have to insult me for liking it?

why are we still talking about bareback mountin'?

why are we still talking about bareback mountin'?

'cuz it's getting sarah all hot and bothered.

He would never try anything new, wouldn't eat spicy food, refused to eat chinese food, and the list went on and on. It was so obnoxious, and made him seem so, for a lack of a better term, "childish".

Here's this frozen dog turd I found out in the street. Why don't you take a bite?

What's that? You don't like frozen dog turd? Well, for God's sake -- you can't know if you don't like it until you've tried it. Have you ever tried it?

No? Well, then, eat up!

You're dead on on Woody Allen's decline.

And this gay guy gets where you're coming from and wish more gay people did.

Millions of formerly repressed men and women are risking their lives and limbs by voting, and the rest of the free world is discussing Woody Allen's ass-sex movie.

That's just great.

Michael, in answer to your question about Ron Howard: Yes. In fact, there is very little he's done I'd ever care to view again.

Ron Howard's track record is getting pretty bad for my interest. I think the last think he did that got my attention was 'Apollo 13.' Looking at his list of directorial credits on IMDB I see far more misses than hits. Worse, some of the misses have some fairly offensive historical revisionism that reflect a dishonesty when dealing with people and events drawn from real life. The very thought of such garbage as 'Far and Away' earns extra demerits. And now we have his film version of 'The DaVinci Code,' a book that deserved to languish in obscurity for rehashing a maguffin that SF writers had exhausted in the 70s.

So no, Ron Howard's name does not increase my interst in a movie.

I, too, am perplexed by these women who enjoy slash fanfic or shonen-ai/yaoi. I read an article somewhere that speculated that teenage girls liked shonen-ai because the men were non-threatening to them because they weren't interested in women. As a woman who was a teenager just a few years ago, I really, really don't understand that, but heck, _someone's_ writing and reading all that Mulder/Skinner slash.

I'm pretty late to the dance on this. I like a lot of the gay men I know individually but you get them together and it's a nightmare. They're collectively as shallow and vain and catty as a ninivan full of junior high cheerleaders. And they really are nasty when talking about women. ... In any field in which gay men have risen to the top, be it theater, fashion, or hell, the Roman Catholic Church, women are even further marginalized.

"AllahPundit tipped me to that, and also offers the following predictions [for Andy]:

1. Identifying straight men who show any distaste for BM at all will become a running theme on his blog over the next few weeks"

I predict Andy won't be talking about:

1. What Muslim men think about the film

2. How the movie has harmed the image of the US in Muslim eyes

Timmy, seriously bud...enough. If you don't like the fucking discussion, don't take part in it.

Oh, about Medved. Yeah, he gave the movie 3 1/2 stars, but he also noted on Fox that it's not about 'romance" but about the destruction of two families (wives and kids) by infidelity. Basically, high production values and low morals.

Okay, I admit it. If I saw photos or film of Ace and Allah swapping spit, I would be turned on.

I don't think gays understand straight guys' sexual wiring any more than do women -

When we see a sex scene in a movie, it is either a turn ON, or a turn OFF - there is no middleground. There is a bit of margin for variety but at minimum there has to be an attractive woman involved or it's going to fall into category 2.

It's that simple.

Well, that works both ways. I'm tired of seeing that Geezer, Richard Gere, as a romatic lead.

I would like to thank the later commenters for using the correct movie title "Brokeback Mountain", as well as its other variations including "Bareback Mountain" and "Bareback Mountin'" rather than its acronym. The thread was getting a bit scatalogical for my tastes. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Femme said:

He would never try anything new, wouldn't eat spicy food, refused to eat chinese food, and the list went on and on. It was so obnoxious, and made him seem so, for a lack of a better term, "childish".

Maybe, but isn’t equally childish to harangue people about what to eat? Let your boyfriend eat what he wants. What's more obnoxious, the person who eats what he or she wants and lets others do the same, or the person who harasses people about what they do or don't eat?

I buy the argument that one might not want to see the movie because it is a romantic drama, and you really don't like slow-moving, acting/dialogue dramas, and you'll fall asleep. But if you already like those kinds of films, (e.g. maybe you saw "A History of Violence" or "In the Bedroom" or "Shawshank Redemption"), and your only reason to not see "Brokeback Mountain" is the gay element, that's just bizarre and weird to me. I'm not buying it.

I find this whole comment bizarre and weird. Movie content doesn’t matter? I should be willing to see all slow moving dramas, because I once liked one? I don’t see every comedy simply because I once found one funny. This makes no sense. I’m not buying it.

have any of you who are so "squeamish" actually ever seen 2 men kiss? It's really not that different or weird. There's humans, you know.

Actually, that’s probably what bothers me most about this movie. It’s simultaneously treated as if it’s avant-garde and it's “no big deal.” Personally, I think it’s no big deal. There’s plenty of gay stuff out there already: TV sitcoms, drama series on Showtime, and there’s even talk of an all gay television network. Yet this movie is hailed as some kind of pinnacle of gay achievement, acceptance, awareness, or...something. I’m not buying that either.

If I want to go see BM to get my liberal street creds, but still require a homo seat between me and my friend, what does that say about me?

It's a hard world to figure out.

I am way, way late on this one (been out of town for a few days), but one point I haven’t seen anyone bring up is the connection between the Brokeback Mountain, the movie, and the original story “Brokeback Mountain.”

I read the story several years back and liked it. It wasn’t gay pron; it was a story about two guys in a relationship that nothing in their cultural background had equipped them to understand, or even acknowledge. Not so much forbidden love as unimaginable, unbearable love. The story was an interesting read that gave me something to think about, much more interesting than the kazillionth remake of Romeo and Juliet, only this time with gay sheepherders. Good stories don’t necessarily make good movies.

Also, I spent half an hour sitting in my living room while I read it, and it didn’t cost me ten bucks. I doubt that seeing this thing would be torture for me, but at those prices you’ve got to be a lot more selective about what you see in the theatre, and Brokeback Mountain doesn’t make the cut.

In defense of femme, nobody likes fussy bf's or gf's. Deciding where to go to eat shouldn't take an hour.

I've seen gay pron and it's kind of...automotive.
BM sounds like a gay romance film. The good guy gets the guy in the, um, end.

All the more reason why straight guys need not apologize for ignoring this movie.

Romance? Sure if you count abandoning your family and terribly hurting your wife and children in the process as romantic. Maybe straight guys can relate to that.

"You know who I really would like to see BM with? Hewitt."

OT, but everytime you guys wrote "BM" I thought bowel movement... which changes Allahs statement dramatically.

Not to get off this topic, but I'm more interested in the mention of an unclothed Anne Hathaway.

I think you guys just don't understand where femme is coming from.

See, she takes a particular superficial aspect of a person and, based on that aspect, makes a snap judgment about that person and assigns a lot of motives and characteristics that may or may not be present in that person, but by God, it happened to her once so there you go.

Some people do that very same thing with gays or blacks or women, but that's bigotry and prejudice, which is different.

Utron: Also, I spent half an hour sitting in my living room while I read it, and it didn’t cost me ten bucks.

Me: Movies about gay relationships basically bely the fact that Hollywood and certain screenwriters cannot deal with male-male dialog unless it degenerates into sex. And why highlight the gay sex unless 1) you want to highlight homosexuality as a cause/raison d'etre, or 2) you were gonna make a movie about guys having significant moments together, and the only way to show intimacy was to have them bend over a tree.

Boring.

Exactly. Why was the screenplay turned into schtick for gays and gay activists? You have to work at it, make some alterations, change the essence of the work.

At the risk of sounding ... sensitive ...., I might have seen a faithful adaptation of the book. Why? Possibly because of good acting, or good story-telling, or possibly because it was written by McMurtry, who has come up with some excellent plots and prose in the last 30 years.

But by all accounts (I have not seen it) the movie is not about the book, or about the characters, or the scenery, or men coming to a deeper realization of who they are and what they want. It is instead an indulgence into sex for sex's sake, and gay sex at that. I can hear the film-makers now - "This is essential to the story."

Therefore, buying a ticket to the movie is endorsing that indulgence.

Isn't it ironic that when conservatives are every bit as consistent as liberals want them to be, they are criticized for being, well, conservative. And that is a debate that I am bored with. I don't need to see a movie to prove that I am edgier / more tolerant than thou.

Hey Allah...somone doesn't get it.

What's interesting to me is that there really is an appetite, however limited, for non-erotic male homosexuality (e.g., Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The Birdcage), and there is an appetite for lesbian eroticism in mainstream film. But not frank male-on-male eroticism. I can't begin to explain the discrepancy--I mean, why so many people find male-on-male eroticism distasteful, when they tolerate the same from female-to-female--but it's real.

Guess Rod Dreher's not an AoSHQ reader.

Every time I see the title of the movie (even before I knew what it was about) I couldn't help but see "Bareback Mountain". I can't help but wonder if this was intentional.

The gay element is the reason I won't see anything involving Ang Lee or Heath Ledger. Having two guys make out in this one dosen't sweeten the deal.

Femme: You got us. None of us lives in a city, went to high school, or has cable. We're just assuming seeing two men make out would be gross, without ever having seen that. You're one of those chicks that always try to feed you back your own manseed, aren't you?

BTW, in physical, visual terms, men are NOT human, we are mangy, veiny, simian monstrosities. Someone mentioned the beauty of the male body. That guy needs to stare at some testicles for an hour or so. That alone disproves the notion of the male body possessing beauty; Even if everything else you've got IS pretty, you can't be physically beautiful with any nasty protuberances. Can't be a supermodel with a goiter.

That people deny this is frustrating, not because it threatens my ability to pretend not to secretly yearn for scrotum, but because it is a denial of one of the rougher aspects of being a heterosexual male; heterosexual women are actually physically repulsed by the most hansome of us (ahem)! Who is it who always wants the lights out? A woman shows you hers, you hand her some money; a man shows his, fine and time served. Then you want to tell me about the beauty of the male body. Fine, why don't I just quit my job and put up a webc@m in my house so people can pay to watch me shave and do jumping jacks and stuff.

The porn talk earlier made me want to ask the women here a question: When a guy is sipping dewdrops from your snapdragon, do you actually look down and watch? That is an off-putting sight, man! I mean, when it's a guy doing it, especially if it's that one dude with a mustache that's in every single one of those movies. Looks like the Cookie Monster.

Sipping dewdrops from my snapdragon? I gotta write that one down.

Personally, I can't see a reason to look at my gardener at work. If the man knows what he's doing he doesn't need my supervision and if he doesn't I'll only make him nervous.

Supervision is actually appreciated, I think that's at least half of the appeal of dominatrices, I'm pretty sure the reason you don't look is that it's a hideous spectacle. Has anyone ever enjoyed watching a man eat ice cream?

Gay harry pOtter, check out the NAMBLA website they have a sick article on is "harry potter gay". it is VOMIT inducing