Is Frank Rich actually mentally retarded?

Yes.

Ace, if you're smart you would be working on your own gay cowboy script(s).

Dude, what script do you think I've been talking about for two years?

Weren't you talking about Brokeback Mountin' when you were blogging from Sundance? I wonder why they waited so long to release it but for the fact that they think they have an Oscar contender. It sure isn't going to pull in the holiday movie going crowd.

Maybe you shd try pulling a Producers, Ace. Write a script that is totally offensive to your own and what you consider most movie goers sensibilites.

I'm still not so sure this won't do well, at least on it's own art house terms. Yeah, it won't contend against the season's big studio films, but it won't have to to be considered a success by those who tell the public whether a film is a success or not. Just saying, was 'March of the Penguin's' a flop? Stacked against Narnia, yes. Stacked against it's single screen, blue-state urban 'cinema' competitors, it's a runaway hit.

Yeah, Rich is dead wrong in that he sees this as some tidal event, heralding middle-class, golf channel dudedom's embrace of 'teh ghey' -DEAD WRONG - but it will be huge on it's own, more realistic terms.

I also think it'll do well with Chicks. Chicks love a forbidden love story. We don't have that anymore, we don't have the class structure to tell a tale set in modern times where James can never fall of that shop-keep Jenny with 'ello govenor' accent.

Seriously, that's story is hard wired into the human females' brain. They cannont do without it. Check out the Romance section of any bookstore -it's huge. Every story stocked with a plot- impediment to a love that 'could not be denied.'

Here's an impediment that allow the story to be set in near modern times. And sexually, as Ace posted recently, chicks get turned on by a wide range of things, not just direct hetero pron like men...

It'll do well.

Well, for a major-studio film with millions of dollars of paid and unpaid advertising, it will do very well as an art-house film, true.

I think Frank Rich is suggesting it will do better than that, though.

Rich was the theater critic with no military training who called the jet-flying President a wimp for not going immediately to Vietnam. That tells me right there that he is totally delusional if not outright deranged.

P.S.
Ace, your plantain is waiting. Don't think I have forgotten.

I also think it'll do well with Chicks. Chicks love a forbidden love story. We don't have that anymore, we don't have the class structure to tell a tale set in modern times where James can never fall of that shop-keep Jenny with 'ello govenor' accent.

Seriously, that's story is hard wired into the human females' brain. They cannont do without it. Check out the Romance section of any bookstore -it's huge. Every story stocked with a plot- impediment to a love that 'could not be denied.'

Well, yeah, but there's a reason for that. Chicks like romance films, and unless there's something keeping the lovers apart, you don't have a story. You just have two people making goo-goo eyes at each other and having sex and then going to Bed Bath & Beyond.

But just because chicks like romance films, which always have the obstacle thing, doesn't mean they'll be into slam-ass gay-sex movies.

No, Reo. We can do quite well without seeing two guys swap spit or butt fuck each other.

Okay, Ace, now you can follow up with a "What are you doing here then? ..."

But just because chicks like romance films, which always have the obstacle thing, doesn't mean they'll be into slam-ass gay-sex movies.

I just don't see chicks as having the innate (yes, i think it's innate) natural revulsion to male homo sex that men do. You yourself always joke about how they're all a martini away from doing with another chick from the office. If they're not (as) weirded out like men are by homo sex with their own sex, why think that they are by watching the opposite sex engage in the homo love? In men, we don't have that problem - we're all about the lesbian sex porn (or if not really that 'into it' we aren't squirming like crazy like with man-man action).

Just don't see chicks with the same revulsion as men might have watching. They're gonna be all about that love story, no problem.

that slam-ass gay-sex love which dare not speak it's name

Revulsion in that we wd murder a guy for making a gay pass at us? No. Revulsion in that we are not interested in seeing movies about slam-ass gay-sex? Yes.

For the record, I did not like Maurice.

My wife got mad at me when I started to make fun of Brokeback Mountain. She'll defend the movie and gay stuff purely out of principle. Don't ask me what principle that is. Haven't a clue. I just know that's when I make fun of "gay" she defends them and gets mad at me. I think chicks are wired that way. Has anyone else had this experience?

Anyway, I think the movie will do well with chicks.

It's a story America may be more than ready to hear a year after its president cynically flogged a legally superfluous (and unpassable) constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage for the sole purpose of whipping up the basest hostilities of his electoral base.

Notice Mr. Rich didn't mention that gay marriage issues on the state level went 0-11- and that otherwise nominally Democratic voters were apparently between 25%-33% of the winning vote total in all states where these issues were contested, 'blue' and 'red' alike...

Did your wife go see the movie?

Same in California. When the Prop was ont he ballot defining marriage as that between a man and a woman, it won 2:1.

As far as popular movies go, I think most woman might prefer Casanova..

Question: Is Frank Rich actually mentally retarded?

Unfortunately, no...

The cynic in me is forced to admit...

Even though it is sometimes truly hard to see the evidence, even O-Chubb, Wonkette, and Frank Rich would all qualify as more intelligent than half the population...

There's a lesson about "Democracy" in there somewhere...

No, I agree that women may be more inclined to see Brokeback, because it is, at heart, a chick-flick film, Jane Austen meets Deliverance.

And no, they won't mind the gay sex as much as some men might.

Still, women go to see romantic movies with female leads they can identify with and male leads they'd like to land. There's no female lead her and the male lead, at least in terms of the character, is not really a "good catch."

I mean, what women have the fantasy of marrying a guy who always wants to go on "fishing trips" with his sheepherder buddy?

In answer to the question: did my wife see the movie?

Oh, hell no. She wouldn't see a movie about gay shepherds cornholing each other. She finds that disgusting. And she can't stand most actors because she says most of them are gay. But she still gives me shit for being intolerant about gays. It's just her way of getting an advantage in the eternal war husband and wives wage over who has "hand."

mean, what women have the fantasy of marrying a guy who always wants to go on "fishing trips" with his sheepherder buddy?

Dude, to chicks those are love trips, secret rendezvous where their forbidden love can bloom into its full loveness before going back to society's unlove once again. (Oh, and love.)

Seriously, that's how they see everything. Give them the Rorsharch and 3/4 of the plates will be about how the one blot secretly loves the other blot, but the little blot right there won't let the two....

In movies, take something like 'Lady and the Tramp.' Putting aside the fact it's a cartoon, it's a cartoon about DOGS. Trust me, play that movie for a (adult) chick and you better have the KY prewarmed cause when the one cartoon dog rolls the cartoon meatball to the other cartoon dog, she's ready.

I would say lets watch how Casanova does compared to Brokeback (a good control is that the share the same leading male) but box office is bizarre.

The better test is to ask those chicks who have seen it whether they broke down balling. Guarantee it'll happen. Ask Karol. Ask her to ask her liberal friends, did they cry? If they say no, they're lying. Cause it's the love love forbidden love, baby.

Chicks don't like to see two guys having nasty butt sex under any curcumstances. Love or no love. They like to envision themselves in the love story. That isn't allowed to happen when when the story revolves around two dudes.

Chicks don't like to see two guys having nasty butt sex under any curcumstances.

Chicks don't like to see a man and a woman having nasty butt sex either. And if it turns out brokeback has such - explcit scenes of anal intercourse finished with a facial -they'll walk out. If not, they'll stick to their seats, melting into the love story onscreen just fine.

Reo has been thinking about the specifics of this way too much.

Jeez, Symes, WTF do you meet these bizarre women? Do you troll the Harlequin section at Barnes & Noble?

Question: Is Frank Rich actually mentally retarded?

Jeez, what a pissant question. Of course he's not...he's just a bonehead.

The real question is:
Does Roger Toussaint believe he's the reincarnation of Mickey Quill?

If the answer is "Yes," I have a whole lotta Irish guys wanting his ass tossed on the railroad tracks.

Doc, 'March of the Penguins' is a hit because it did a ton of business and generated great amounts of revenue after its production, marketing and distribution costs are paid off. The Narnia flick could do $10 Billion worth of business and that would not stop the Penguins from eating herring off $100 bills.

But I agree that this movie will do well primarily because it's a chick flick rather than a 'gay is now mainstream' breakthrough. The gay audience already turns out strongly for chick flicks. The only men I know who really got into 'Titanic' were gay men whose cinematic tastes parallel those of 16-year-old girls.

As a former bookstore worker I can attest the romance section is incredibly formulaic. It was harder to track the stock in there because it all blended together. Any other section I could tell by sight what had passed its due date for being stripped to make room for more drivel. It's made some of these writers rich but also driven them insane with the format's limits. The better ones branch out into other genres that require more effort for less money but are more satisfying when they see their work on a shelf. Going the other way, you'd be surprised how many male SF writers have a female pen name they use to crank out romances. The fast ones can produce one a month to pay the bills while still working on other stuff.

Frank Rich is just plain silly. He has long since had the psychotic break that allows him to ignore any demonstrably reality that negates his belief of the moment. In this case, he conveniently chooses not to remember that nobody was discussing state and federal laws to rigidly define marriage until gay activist began pushing for gay marriage. It didn't become an issue because on the minds of most people until the professionally Oppressed decided it was the latest thing to get whiny about.

In the process they sabotaged themselves. Legal support of gay relationships had been gaining ground for decades and allowed to continue at that pace would have brought gays every legal status of marriage short of the word itself. Becoming pushy and confrontational caused people who hadn't previously been paying attention to feel cornered and got them to push back at the voting booth. When they made the mistake of making an all or nothing bid they deservedly got told to go screw themselves.

Women may not like to see gay buttsecks graphically depicted but they sure like to fantasize about it. As mentioned recently in another Brokeback thread the primary producers and consumers of slash fiction are supposedly women.

To go from the statement "slash fiction writers are primarily women" to the conclusion "women like to fantasize about male gay sex" is irrational and weird.

Quite a handle you've got there Sarah, most certainly the name of a gal that fantasizes over fictional-gay-cowboy-slasher-buttsex. Very rational and normal, you just need to stop repressing your feelings.

Now you epobirs, start preceding your novella length posts with a chapter index so I can quickly get to the good stuff.

Good Dr., I just got back from the strip where I asked many, many women if they would be interested in a man-love story and they almost all said no. There were some that were interested in this movie because of the *controversy* but that's not really the point.

What is there to relate to in this movie for anybody who is not a gay man? Women aren't interested in love and romance generally, they're interested in love and romance that they can participate in using their imaginations.

... at least that's where my investigation has led me thus far. I'll keep working on it till the New Year.

P.S. Alas, I thought this angle would help me hook up, but to no avail.

No woman is going to be rooting for two guys who dump their wives and children so they can go off and boink and fish. That is the antithesis of romance. This is definitely a straight guy's film.

You can say, "it's a chick film! it's a chick film," until the sheep come home, but as evidence by AOSHQ, it is the stright (allegedly) guys who are fixated on this film.

I'm totally with Ace on this. This is not a "chick" flick in they typical sense. If you mean it's a chick-flick because no heterosexual man (except Dave) is going to see it - then it is, my default a chick flick.

But, I have NO desire to see this movie. The forbidden love of your husband getting some on the down-low? That's a HORROR movie. I don't know one woman who would feel HAPPY that her man finally came out of the closet and left her- and women will identify with the left-behind WIVES in this movie.

And, FTR- homosexual sex between men is a definite turn-off. Like, I might turn off for several days.

It's a 'chick' film only if you define chick as a gay man. Sorry, I don't spend my time fantasizing about butt on butt sex, either between men or women. Certain romance movies are OK, but most are pure drivel - more of an excuse to film explicit sex than an interesting twist on an old, old story. The sex scene in Team America being an exception.

Hey folks, I can handle good natured ribbing as well as the next gay fellow, but come on!

Why do about 50% of all the comments from the (presumably straight) men here boil down to using the word buttsex? Or cornholing? Or something of that nature? There's almost zero talk about the love, the caring, and other things these two characters share besides cornholing!

Do you notice how women or even gay men for that matter rarely use those terms? I guess for straight men, all relationships with any physical contact boil down solely to penetration. You know, not all gay men engage in anal sex. And if most straight men focus solely on pentration, there must be a lot of very unsatisfied women out there.

I'm not judging, I'm just saying.

So Frank Rich loves Brokeback Mountain because it's turned the gay up to 11.

But he hated Passion of the Christ b/c it turned the Jesus up to 11.

The perfect Frank Rich movie? Jesus Christ Superstar.

Just enough God to placate the red-staters, but more than enough of the gay to still skeeve them out.

Hmm, wonder if those folks in Plano, once realizing they were watching 2 gay cowboys, and all that entailed... didn't walk out to the lobby and beat the crap out of the popcorn kid and the ticket girl?

It is Texas after all.

Hey! I'm a chick and you don't see me rushing to see Brokeback Mountain.

I got enough gay dude innuendo doing the hair and makeup at the drag shows and waitressing at the Olive Garden, thanks. Not interested in paying to hear any more. It's no longer forbidden, controversial nor terribly interesting for me.

This one time at the Olive Garden, the general manager was holding a meeting and the gay assistant manager kind of shrieked and squirmed all gay-like and the general manager deadpanned, "Steve, did the gerbil move or something?"

Totally not controversial. Run-of-the-mill for us young chicks.

And if most straight men focus solely on pentration, there must be a lot of very unsatisfied women out there.

Women want to be satisfied sexually? Hmmm.

I. Did. NOT. know. that.

Suddenly, the dearth of long-term relationships in my past makes much more sense.

Hey! I'm a chick and you don't see me rushing to see Brokeback Mountain.

But you're a chick who has a full-sized Ace juju doll/sex zombie in her closet, so what's your point?

> The only men I know who really got into 'Titanic' were gay men whose cinematic tastes parallel those of 16-year-old girls.

Nah, you have it all backwards. The main plot of 'Titanic' was: massive luxury liner hits an iceberg and sinks, and you get to watch. The love story was just thrown in so chicks would sit through it. It's an old Cameron trick (see also: Newt in Aliens).

I'm with Guy T. I liked Titanic. I thought the overall ship and ship sinking effects were great, and the overall story one of great pathos: consider the hundreds of corpses silently floating in their "life preservers." The love story was just something to sit through, excepting the scene where Kate Winslet poses nude.

A big boat hitting an iceberg. How phallic can you get!

Ok, top ten rejected names for "Brokeback Mountain"

10. Bone on the Range

That comment from December at 10:16 is pretty damn funny.

Yeah, slamming into ice and sinking sums up my romantic history pretty nicely.

Homo on the range.

You just have two people making goo-goo eyes at each other and having sex and then going to Bed Bath & Beyond.

Well there's the problem. The events are out of order.

1) Two strangers at Bed Bath & Beyond
2) Goo-goo eyes
3) Sex
4) Checkout

Feisty blabs: "Hey! I'm a chick..."

Sure you are, dear.

9. Momma's, don't let your boys grow up to be boys.

Frank Rich is such a terminal bubble-boy that he doesn't seem to be aware that "Brokeback" is playing nationawide on something like 50 or 60 screens in carefully selected markets, just to qualify for the Oscars. "Kong," by comparison, is playing on something like 7,900 screens.

Personally, I think that speaks volumes about the American public's longing to be kidnapped by a giant ape on an urban rampage, a longing that has been heartlessly ignored by our Chimphitler-in Chief.

8. Two Sausages and a Side of Country Gravy

7. The Yellow^H^H^H Pink Rosebud of Texas

ask those chicks who have seen it whether they broke down balling.

Is that freudian or a real possibility? Cuz, you know, if some chicks react that way I may have to buy a ticket myself just to help out. There can't be enough straight guys in the theater to handle even modest demand.

LC: The fudge packing references are because it is the most viscerally alienating element of the male/male concept for most of us. If you have a gay love story, the consummation is naturally implied and really punches the ick button for a lot of us. And yes, we all understand how many ways a cat can be skinned, but basics are basics.

6. A Fistfull of Manmeat

5. The FABULOUS Seven

It's a story America may be more than ready to hear a year after its president cynically flogged a legally superfluous (and unpassable) constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage for the sole purpose of whipping up the basest hostilities of his electoral base.

If it's "cynical" to push an amendment that enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) national majority support across the entire voter base, I suppose Bush fits the description... along with the authors of every existing amendment... and oh let's see, every politician in history...

But when you're talking to a BDS sufferer, it's all about Bush, and his evil, well hung puppetmaster Cheney.

Here's what, maybe I'm an exception...

I maybe want to see some lovely cinematography, but I do not want to see the forbidden man-sex lovestory.

And I love Pride an Predjudice, and accept the premise that women like forbidden love/cinderella genre, especially when the woman is conquering a man through personal merit..

But brokeback, I just have very little interest in seeing.

I suspect most women don't like the slamass stuff, even if they don't have visceral disapproval a male might ( and I am tempted to argue the point...) but they REALLY don't like the idea that their husbands have a secret gay side that will lead to divorce.

4. Hang 'em Low

Title: Thaddle Thor.

You're Thor? I'm tho thor I can hardly pith.

just to let everyone here know - i saw the movie. there is one sex scene and it is left more to the mind than on the screen. there is one kiss that might make people uncomfortable, but that is it.

i think a lot of people will see the movie because of the oscar buzz and positive reviews. the fact that they are releasing it very carefully and slowly will definitely help because after people see it, the word of mouth will stop the momentum. it really wasn't that good of a movie - very slow and i didn't get into the characters and their relationship like i thought i would based on all the talk. most people who came out of the theater were disappointed (and these were mostly gay men and straight women).

that being said, i still think it will be a success because it only cost like 12 million to make, so it will make enough to be considered a succcess compared to these blockbusters that cost 100 million and don't make back anything near that.

You know, having watched a few gay love stories (on film, I don't mean the one playing out with Ace and Dave in front of us), I have come up with a useful yardstick for judging them (ba-dum-dum). Ask yourself, if it were a straight couple, i.e. you took the gayhood comletely out of the equation, would it be worth watching? So far the answer (with the possible exception of the Crying Game) has always been no. The gayosity is always a gimmick, to prop up an otherwise plot-free story.

In Addition:

3. A Mullet for Sister Sarah

Title:

Rooster Cockburn

2. Butch Cassady and the Sundress Kid

1. The Shootist

I haven't seen it, so it's not like I'm restrained by the facts here or anything. Still, my impression is that it will probably be a commercial success by indie, art-house standards, and it's already a critical success, even discounting a lot of hype over the non-issue of a gay love story (the general public seems to have gotten over their shock on this point a lot quicker than the intelligentsia).

I'm guessing it will pick up at least a couple of Oscar nominations. But, Frank Rich aside, no way is the country succumbing to an epidemic of Brokeback Mountain fever. Anyway, you can usually avoid that if you scrub vigorously with sheep-dip after your lovemaking.

Could this film actually eclipse "Top Gun" as the greatest homo-erotic crossover flick? (Not in our hearts of course; just at the box office.)

Bart: Feisty blabs: "Hey! I'm a chick..."

Sure you are, dear.

Ok, the "you're a dude" thing is sooooo old. One of these times I'll call into Snuggly's radio show and prove that my vagina actually exists. If he ever decides to have a show again.

Snuggly's? Oh, you do own an Ace juju doll, don't you! lol!

I can't imagine for the life of me why a woman would want to see this film. Every single woman in the film gets treated like absolute shite by the "heroes". Hell, the strong silent Heath Ledger character not only cuckolds his wife right in fron of her but does his subsequent girlfriend dirty, too.

What woman in her right mind would want to see a move where the women get their hearts broken repeatedly and on purpose by a couple of randy sheepherders?

And sexually, as Ace posted recently, chicks get turned on by a wide range of things, not just direct hetero pron like men...

1. Baaaaaaaaaad Medicine

I think it would be interesting if each comment was prefaced with one of the following two statements:

I think homosexuality is a choice.

I think homosexuality is a inherent trait.

Just a thought.

Now for my main point.

Its a movie. It is supposedly a good movie. Good acting. Good cinematography. Good editing. Good sound. A good movie. Regardless of your pathetic insecurities about human sexuality.

Frank Rich thinks it will be a watershed moment in the Homosexual movement, and he may very well be right. Think of another film which has two A-list stars playing homosexual lovers where the movie is not about them dying of AIDs and is not played for laughs or camp value.

And believe it or not, the movie is less about gay sex than it is about you. The film is about two gay men who fall in love but cannot even attempt to make it work because of society's view of them. One of the characters literally thinks that he will be murdered if they are "caught" in the wrong place.

Many wish the "gay problem" would go away. They tell gays to get back into the closet. This film is about the closet. The closet has its victims.

Will this film change anyone's opinion about homosexuality. Of course it will. Will it change many person's opinions? Only time will tell.

I do find it interesting how many men are here guessing whether women will want to see this film. Do you not have female friends and lovers to ask?

My wife wants to see this movie badly. Really badly. Due to the high cost of seeing movies (parking, tickets, baby-sitter) I try to save our few in-theater experiences for the King Kong type movies.

I would gladly sit through any Ang Lee film on DVD however. He hasn't made a bad film yet that I've seen (I even liked The Hulk and didn't see Ride With the Devil).

Um, Mr. Slough, you never actually made a point. Try again.

Come to think of it, if they did a sequel starring Jessica Simpson and Angelina Jolie as lonely prison guards, I'd be ALL OVER THAT.

But I wouldn't take my wife.

Oh, no! The moonbat thought police have arrived.

I think it would be much more interesting if each of my comments was prefaced with the following non sequitors:

I think Heath Ledger is hot.

I think Jake Gyllenhaal is also hot.

Now for the part where I think I'm subtly insulting you while pretending to make a point.

I'm a tool. A pathetic lefty hack who gets his jollies trolling conservative blogs and affecting an erudite persona that barely disguises my lack of intelligence, wit or personality.

Frank Rich thinks it will be a watershed moment in the Homosexual movement, and he may very well be right. Of course, take that with a grain of salt because I wouldn’t disagree with Frank Rich under any circumstances, even if he were ass-raping me with a rolled up copy of the New York Times while singing “It’s Raining Men.”

Believe it or not, the movie is less about gay sex than it is about my need to use a movie to make myself feel superior and boost my ridiculously low self-esteem.

This film is about two gay men who fall in love, but it had to be set in the past, so that the issue of homophobia could be explored. Because as we know, these days, these guys could have solved their problems by moving to another part of the country where no one would have looked down upon their sexual preference.

I do find it interesting how many men are here guessing whether women will want to see this film. After all, it gives me an opportunity to ask you whether you actually have ever seen a female in the flesh and feel superior to you, because I once touched a woman’s boobie. I was helping her into a bus at the time and copped a feel, but still - boobie.

My wife wants to see this film really really badly. After all, I don’t pleasure her all that well, and she needs some footage for the mind-film she has to run in order to have sex with me.

I love all of Ang Lee's films. Especially the Hulk. Made me haaawt.

The closet has its victims. WTF?

Are you from Graz?

Hey, did you all hear the selections for the Olympic ice hockey team today!?!

Hey, did you all hear the selections for the Olympic ice hockey team today!?!

"chicks" huh. what decade are you guys from?

OUCHH-AH!

Wow did that ever smart!

Oh wait, no it didn't.

I do love how straw-me gets to have sex with his (granted, Heath Ledger fantasizing) wife but also brags about groping a single breast on a bus. I guess getting a bit of strange is far more important to straw-me than is full on gash-pounding with the love of one's life. (We can't limit the crude sex-talk to just the homos, can we?).

I suppose I see why Straw-Me has such low self esteem. I don't think I have low self esteem. I just don't like seeing idiots say stupid things about homosexuals. If you think I have an air of superiority about me, that says more about you then it does me.

You know that your opinions are hateful and wrong. You know that you are going to be on the wrong side of history on this one. You know that acceptance of homosexuality is the new Civil Rights movement and you are trapped behind the curve by your juvenile bigotry. That is your issue, not mine. I don't hate gays.

Anyhoo,

I am flattered that my opinions garnered so much attention. Though I differ with Straw-Me on The Hulk. I LIKED it. I certainly didn't love it.

Cheerio, Straw-Me

I enjoyed our conversation. A bit like talking into a funhouse mirror.

Now why don't you tell me what you really think.

I can give you a beginning:

"I hate gay men because . . . (insert insecurity)."

to Bruce: I made several points. Not the least of which is get over it. It is a fucking movie.

Seattle, you've really, really missed the point of the conversation.

This all started not because of the movie itself but because of the accusation that those of us who failed to lay down our money to see it were somehow making an admission of intense homophobia just by our absence from the theater.

The technical term for this tactic is utter bullshit.

The emotional spectrum is not a set of binary conditions. That I do not love a thing does not automoaticaly mean that I hate it. There are plenty of possible states in between, including indifference or tolerance.

There is simply nothing about this movie, including Anne Hathaway's breasts, that makes me want to spend money on seeing it in a theater. At the same time there is quite a lot about it that makes me dread the thought of sitting in a darkened room giving it my full attention.

I know all about the gay closet and its victims. Been hearing about it since the 70s. I have an acquaintance in prison for murder largely because of his fear of being outed to his parents. http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn30/graydavis.html

None of that means I find such stories at this late date a reason to plunk down money at the theater. It's 2005 and things are very different than the era in which the film is set. In much the same way I have little compulsion to relive numerous other historical horrors I've heard about endlessly. Someone could make the absolutely best Holocaust movie of all time and put in theaters late next year but despite being Jewish and having relatives directly involved in those events I'm unlikely to attend. I'm just not interested in spending my time on the subject anymore for its own sake. The only aspect I really care about anymore is how it serves as a way for certain people to proclaim themselves as jerks. But just because I take their behavior as a warning doesn't mean I need to wallow in it myself.

I go to the movies for entertainment, not to borrow other people's anxiety. Especially fictional people. I have no shortage of real people who want me to hang around while they vent. Free of charge. Why should I pay to have this same treatment?

As for the idea that we should make a statement about the origins of homosexuality, aren't you making things a bit narrow there? Are we speaking solely of male homosexuality? The mechanism doesn't appear to be identical for both genders. I've met plenty of women who call themselves lesbians but admit to finding sex with men enjoyable. They've chosen to solely have sex with women as a political stance. (One such woman was different in that she wasn't concerned about making a political stance but rather had become deathly afraid of HIV exposure after many of her bisexual male friends became infected.) Other women can confidently say they knew from a very young age.

The situation seems narrower for gay men. I've very rarely heard any who spoke of it as a choice. If you look at it from an anthropology perspective it's probable that the behavior serves a different purpose in each gender in relation to the survival of the DNA sharing group to which they belong.

It doesn't matter in any case whether I view it as a choice or not. The question is whether I believe those individuals have a right to do what they want so long as that activity doesn't directly impinge on my own personal freedom. I don't have to accept it. I only have to tolerate it. The narcissists like Andrew Sullivan don't understand that. They feel they are horribly oppressed until the day comes they are not merely tolerated but instead loved. Ain't gonna happen.

The closet has its victims. WTF?

Are you from Graz?

Yeah - you know, shoes and coats that just...disappear, while the coat hangers keep getting more numerous. I'm telling you some kind of weird shit goes down in there. Creepy place.

I just don't like seeing idiots say stupid things about homosexuals.

Do you expect idiots to speak and write intelligently about anything? By definition, isn't an idiot a person who acts without intelligence, or stupidly?

By the way, Mr. Slough, you did not make a cogent point. Your comment was incoherent. This time, think about what you want to say and then organize those thoughts on paper. When you are done, you can then begin to draft a proper comment with complete and coherent sentences. Give it a try, I know you can do it.

Sorry, moron. As much as you'd like to pretend at projection, I don't have a particularly low self-esteem, nor do I hate homosexuals.

I simply enjoyed mocking you.

RE: "chicks" huh. what decade are you guys from?

They're from the "I couldn't get laid by a woman, or a man, for that matter, if my life depended on it" decade...

It's no wonder this fucking country is falling the fuck apart...I have never seen written a more obnoxious, onerous and vile fountain of crap in my life.

Most of you fucking idiots haven't even seen the movie...Yet you feel free to use such derogatory phrases as,"butt on butt sex," [How, exactly, does butt on butt sex work???] and have absolutely no fucking idea what the hell you're talking about...

But that gives me pause to reflect...Really, that's what it's all about, isn't it? The reason you ignorant fools hate gay people is that you're still so caught up in the fear that getting fucked up the ass is going to make you less of a man..So afraid that two guys loving each other somehow emasculates you. Grow the fuck up, assholes.

It really would be one thing if any of you knew what you were talking about. Do some homework--read the goddamn short story by E. Annie Proulx (I make a leap here that you can read--based on the offensive and horrendous way you put together words on a word processor, it appears you can write--so I am taking a leap and imagining you can read) Once you have read the short story--it's only about 20 pages folks, don't worry--you won't kill those last three brain cells reading it--then find the damn movie and watch it. If you still feel compelled to spew your noxious bile, then so be it. But at the very least you'll possibly have a somewhat educated vat of bile to spew.

Flame on!

The motherfucking flame war is on.

Slough,

Do you have any evidence where people are expressing hatred of gays on this site? Frank Rich made some statements/predictions in his article and we are discussing whether we agree, is that beyond the pale?

ps: I didn't take offense to your first posting and thought that it was in the spirit of the way things are discussed around here. Although you do seem to have come in with the attitude that we are a bunch of homophobes which probably triggered the sarcastic responses.

Seattle, you could take a lesson from epobirs aside from the spot-on content of his last comment. See, he's wordy, but uses his words in service to a cogent point. You - you're prolix and incoherent.

Jason sounds the like typical angry homosexual.

Jason, how's your relationship with your father?

Jason, your point about education seems lost in your near-constant use of profanity. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

He kisses me with that mouth, after we have nasty "butt-on-butt" freaky deaky sex.

Ok, I'll bite -

I hate gay men because... umm... give me a minute here... oh I know - I hate gay men because their metrosexual sophistication and sensitivity to women's issues makes me feel clunky and uncouth! How about that?

Thanks Bart. I will take that into consideration.

Funny how you seemed to let the organizational deficiencies of the rest of us slide, but I suppose my post was particularly egregious.

Epobirs:

you said: "This all started not because of the movie itself but because of the accusation that those of us who failed to lay down our money to see it were somehow making an admission of intense homophobia just by our absence from the theater."

I didn't see that. Not in the Rich quotes or the analysis by our host. What I saw, (and see) is a quote suggesting the film will do well, and an analysis suggesting it won't. This is followed by a lot of comments saying that it won't, might, or can't.

I believe I was the first one to suggest anything close to what you believe is how the conversation got started.

Of course I don't believe it, but I, myself, have already stated that I probably won't go see it.

I appreciate all of your comments. And of course not everyone who is disgusted by the thought of homosexual acts hates gays. They just hate homosexuality. That doesn't mean that they still don't have issues to get over.

An argument could be made that any sexual act is "disgusting." Most of what passes for heterosexual porn these days is pretty disgusting. However, those who have not seen the film, are a bit premature in claiming it is distasteful, or disgusting, or offensive, or whatever. If you can't imagine that a film telling the story of two male lovers could be anything but one of those bad things, you have an issue. You hate homosexuality. Period.

You can say that disgust and hatred are different, but that is merely semantics. Disgust is a type of hatred.

And those who claim that the story represents a past America that no longer exists don't know the reality of anti-gay violence. One of our soldiers just recently had his life threatened and was violently assaulted by a fellow soldier when his "dirty secret" got out.

If you don't buy it, why don't you grab a friend and go out in a strange town posing as gays and see how much fun and acceptance you get. Seriously. If America is no longer afraid of the gay, you shouldn't have any problems.

Also, some here possibly don't realize that the story takes place over many many years and thus, has to take place in the past.

Cheers friends.

Seriously, Jason, you have expressed a disdain for the "hate" you've seen on this site, but then you express enough of it to qualify as a hater yourself.

I'm sure you could justify your hatred with the same tired self-righteousness liberals tend to drag out when their prejudices are pointed out, but it's nothing we haven't heard before.

Your assumptions are unwarranted, untrue and frankly, unwelcome and your debate style leaves something to be desired. Now go clean out your mouth with some Lifebouy and have a nice glass of wine to calm yourself down.

Disgust is a type of hatred.

You can't expect us to take that seriously. That's worse than your mellodramatic The closet has victims nonsense.

Your writing reminds of the kind of material college professors encourage their students to produce (for an "A," that is).

My professors liked it when I "explored" society's flaws. And as long as I came to the same conclusion: the white patriarchal members of society are oppressive, I got a good grade with several positive comments.

But in the real world...

Can't we all be friends and have "butt on butt" sex?

Seattle, you make some interesting points.

I'm not sure I agree, though, that disgust is just another word for hatred. Maybe it's more a semantic difference than anything else, but I think disgust tends to be more visceral. Hatred tends to be borne of either bad experience or simple lack of knowledge.

Oh, so sorry about the use of profanity...I guess I flipped my butch-button a little too hard.

Jason, are you circumsized?

Oh, so sorry about the use of profanity...I guess I flipped my butch-button a little too hard.

Butch-button?

Slough,

Yes there are homophobes, racists and sexists in this country. You still however have yet to demonstrate how the posters here fit into the categories above.

What it appears that you are saying is that not wanting to watch or think about homosexual sexual relations (or being disgusted by the thought of them) makes people homophobes? Well I don't like to think about or watch ugly heterosexuals having sex, what does that make me? Biased against ugly people just because I don't want to watch them have sex (an uglophobe)? Guess what, by your rules I'm biased against myself. I think I'm gonna sue myself and then settle for a twelve pack of Sierra's and the new Michael Houser CD. That will teach me to be a hater.

Jeez, Jason, calm down.

I swear, though, if I just changed out a few key words in your rant, it would sound exactly like a religious nut damning us all to eternal hell.

As to the wide appeal of Brokeback Mountain, I'm a little suspect if only because little bitches like Frank Rich are making such a pre-emptory strike against all us Jesusland rednecks in flyover country by proclaiming the film's "greatness." If the film appeals to women at all, it's only because the like looking at attractive male actors. But I agree with some of the other posters here that a typical hetero women might find it difficult to empathize with the movie since the idea of your man suddenly falling in love with another man probably wouldn't top their "Gosh, I hope this happens to me" list.

RE: "Seriously, Jason, you have expressed a disdain for the "hate" you've seen on this site, but then you express enough of it to qualify as a hater yourself.

I'm sure you could justify your hatred with the same tired self-righteousness liberals tend to drag out when their prejudices are pointed out, but it's nothing we haven't heard before.

Your assumptions are unwarranted, untrue and frankly, unwelcome and your debate style leaves something to be desired. Now go clean out your mouth with some Lifebouy and have a nice glass of wine to calm yourself down."

You know, you're right. Silly little queen that I am...I forgot that I should just shut up, not be asked, and never tell. In fact, I think I'll go to Narnia..After all, it's a more exciting type of closet, isn't it?

This isn't a debate, folks. If you don't like butt on butt sex (that high-brow phraseology continues to floor me) then don't participate in it, and don't watch movies where it's even hinted at--period. End of discussion. [There is hardly any sexual behavior visually depicted in "Brokeback," by the way, when compared to the onslaught of hetero-boffing that gets shoved down my throat on a daily basis, through every media channel possible.]

Why the commentary? Why the disdain and disgust and derogatory remarks? And why the self-righteous indignation when you get called on for your malfeasance?
Because you believe deep down in your safe, hetero bones that you're better, that you're more important, and that you are "right" to believe that doing a woman up the butt is good and fun but doing a man up the butt is bad and disgusting.

And you also feel comfortable laughing me off, or picking on my use of profanity to diffuse and water-down my message because you know that no matter what I say, whether I whimper my opinion from behind the closet door, whether I logically and rationally parse the discussion, or whether I explode like the ticking time bomb that I really am, you're always gonna be the majority, and you're always gonna have the power. So you go ahead and call me the prejudiced one. Go ahead and call me a 'hater.'

You know, you're right. Silly little queen that I am...I forgot that I should just shut up, not be asked, and never tell. In fact, I think I'll go to Narnia..After all, it's a more exciting type of closet, isn't it?

Oh, please. Did I say anything about censoring your views? No. I simply said the way you chose to express them was unwelcome and not much different from the hatred you were criticizing.

It's funny..Just as I step into the commentary and go ballistic, suddenly the last several comments have been rather intelligent. Ok, ok, sorry for the explosions. I'm just so sick of people debating my right to exist..It wears on ya after a while, ya know?

you're a tickin time bomb of luv, with a big throbbin butch-button, and I gotta hankerin for some good ol' butt-on-butt action baby.

While I understand your frustration, your points would be better-taken if they were expressed more calmly. I think the major issue most of us have is with Frank Rich's essay and the mistaken belief that our lack of desire to see this film is evidence of our latent homophobia.

Personally, I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD if I see it at all. Seeing any movie in the theater is an unpleasant experience with the cell phones, the bad projection systems and the morons who insist on talking through the entire movie.

Poor Jason. He feels he is a member of a persecuted minority.
How does one gain membership into this special minority?

Engage in homosexual sex-acts. It's that simple. Yet the gays feel they deserve special status in society. They feel they are immune to any criticism because they are minorities and any criticism is hate speech. Any. Criticism.

You didn't answer my question, Jason.
Are you circumsized?

See, they reason like chicks, too.

/ducking and skulking away

There is hardly any sexual behavior visually depicted in "Brokeback," by the way...

For most here, it seems, even "hardly any" is too much.

They should be thankful that this scene from the original short story didn't make it into the movie:

So now he knew it had been the tire iron. He stood up, said you bet he’d like to see Jack’s room, recalled one of Jack’s stories about this old man. Jack was dick-clipped and the old man was not; it bothered the son, who had discovered the anatomical disconformity during a hard scene. He had been about three or four, he said, always late getting to the toilet, struggling with buttons, the seat, the height of the thing, and often as not left the surroundings sprinkled down. The old man blew up about it and this one time worked into a crazy rage. “Christ, he licked the stuffin out a me, knocked me down on the bathroom floor, whipped me with his belt. I thought he was killin me. Then he says, ‘You want a know what it’s like with piss all over the place? I’ll learn you,’ and he pulls it out and lets go all over me, soaked me, then he throws a towel at me and makes me mop up the floor, take my clothes off and warsh them in the bathtub, warsh out the towel, I’m bawlin and blubberin. But while he was hosin me down I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they’d cut me different like you’d crop a ear or scorch a brand. No way to get it right with him after that.”

Yippee ki yay!

.

What the holy heck does being circumcised have to do with anything?

But see, Slublog, it is different..and this is the point that the majority so often fails to grasp...

By acting up, I am an annoyance. My so-called hatred is just something the majority can just casually swat away. At the end of the day though, you'll continue the oppression, because it's ingrained. It's who and how you are. And so long as you fail to see that; so long as you fail to see that you're participating in, and perpetuating, the said oppression, nothing's gonna change the institutions that have propped you up where you now comfortably sit.

Jeesh. Sounds like he did him with a tire iron and then gave him a golden shower.

I'm just so sick of people debating my right to exist..It wears on ya after a while, ya know?

Whoa, there, kemosabe. Right to exist? Are you fucking kidding me. Fucking grow up. If you can't make a point about being gay without this victimology, don't be surprisede when you aren't taken seriously.

Slublog, The Oppressor. lol!

One more thing, Jason. No one is debating your right to exist, you silly gay boy. To suggest it is ridiculous, and you know it.

Speaking for myself, Jason, I don't define any person by what they like to do for sexual recreation. People are more than vaginal-penis sex or the other kind of fake intercourse.

I am not Timmy the Straight. I refuse to think of you as Jason the Homo. To me, you are Jason, the ignoramus who has no sense of humor. The fact you like to play with other men's penises is not who you are. For pete's sake, man, make more of yourself in this short life than being a slave to your sex-life.

What the holy heck does being circumcised have to do with anything?

Don't know, but it apparently has some significance, since it figures in the original story's father/son "golden shower" scene:

Jack was dick-clipped and the old man was not; it bothered the son, who had discovered the anatomical disconformity during a hard scene....
"But while he was hosin me down I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they’d cut me different like you’d crop a ear or scorch a brand. No way to get it right with him after that.”

.

By acting up, I am an annoyance. My so-called hatred is just something the majority can just casually swat away. At the end of the day though, you'll continue the oppression, because it's ingrained. It's who and how you are. And so long as you fail to see that; so long as you fail to see that you're participating in, and perpetuating, the said oppression, nothing's gonna change the institutions that have propped you up where you now comfortably sit.

You have no idea who I am or what I believe, so I'll thank you not to accuse me of emotions or biases I have shown no evidence of holding.

What the holy heck does being circumcised have to do with anything?

Excuse me, but I'm curious. It's for my research. Honest.

Swat, swat, swat...

That's it, Slublog, minimize me more. Swat me away.
Oh, and that's especially good the way you reduced being gay down to just sex. It's all about sex, right. Nothing else is different. And of course, it's perfectly ok to discriminate based on how I have sex. If I wanted to no be oppressed, I could just go find myself a nice woman, right?

Research?

What kind of research? I mean, even if you draw some sort of correlative relationship between guys who are clipped and homosexuality, it wouldn't really mean all that much, since most males born in certain decades were all cut.

That's it, Slublog, minimize me more. Swat me away.

Excuse me? Jason, I have neither minimized you nor have I reduced homosexuality to mere sex. Read the names under the comments before you toss out any more accusations.

Also, some evidence for my minimizing of your right to exist would be nice.

Oh, man, I screwed up...Sorry Slublog...I read the wrong author of a post--now I am embarrassed, and I've grown tired of this..I'm new to the whole blog/comments scene, and I don't think it's for me. I was intending to respond to Timmy, I think...I don't even know any more...Oh, well, I guess I'll go back to privately being a straight-hater..lol...sorry again.

The author's name is under the comment.

Quit being such a victim amigo. Nobody's mad at you. The only one oppressing you is you.

See, dude, that's where you're totally wrong. But anyway...

Yeah, so...Ummm...

They pretty much predicted that women would gravitate to "Brokeback Mountain" more so than men.

Is that what the original talk was about? Does anyone remember the original talk?

Oh, and Kelly...You really ought to do your homework..there are plenty of people in this country who do debate my right to exist on a very regular basis...Actually, they don't debate. They just know I don't have a right to exist, and they want to kill me. That is not exaggeration, friend, it's truth.

Perhaps I engaged in some hyperbole on here though. I'll give you that.

I was wondering: It has already been asked, but--Aside from the research--what does circumcision have to do with any of this discussion?

I don't believe we've addressed the butch button question either.

Jason - can I oppress you? I'm not sure why but somehow it just feels right...

The discussion is about Brokeback Mountin' in which circumsion is an integral part of the original story. That and golden showers and tire irons.

Is that what the original talk was about? Does anyone remember the original talk?

Sorry, meant to respond earlier but I was distracted by my actual job. Hate it when that happens.

I think what most of us hetero types are angry about is Rich's essay and his belief that disliking or, worse, not watching "Brokeback Mountain" somehow displays our true feelings toward homosexuality.

Jason-When you deliver a dose of manmeat, unless you are the catcher, do you wear a Viking helmet? If I were to turn gay I would always wear a Viking helmet when engaged in butt-on-butt luvin.

what does circumcision have to do with any of this discussion?

It's Bart and/or Timmy's latest attempt to come up with an explanation of homosexuality as some kind of psychological disorder. I don't buy it, myself, but I take a don't-ask-don't-tell attitude towards Bart/Timmy's obsession. After all, AoSHQ is all about the tolerance and love.

And by the way, just to be clear, Bart/Timmy's father loved him very much, and he loved his father. Appropriately. Not too much, mind you. Just the right amount. But he sure doesn't hate his father, that's for sure. No sir. Not in the slightest.

I'll chalk you up as "cut," Sandy.

What about the quote from the actual BM story? A father pissing all over his kid, and beating him? And the kid noting that it was the first time he noticed his penis was different from his father's? Seems to have something to do with circumsion. What the hell was all that about?

> and that you are "right" to believe that doing a woman up the butt is good and fun but doing a man up the butt is bad and disgusting.

What? Look, no matter what you may have been led to believe about women, their butts aren't filled with rose petals.

Mmmm... Rose petals...

You're right, Timmy. I got the chop.

Oh, and Kelly...You really ought to do your homework..there are plenty of people in this country who do debate my right to exist on a very regular basis...

Jason, please. I don't need to do any homework to understand that there are hateful people in the world who would do physical harm to another person because of their sexual preferences. Hell, there's probably people who do me harm because I'm an upper class, white Republican male. (Think I'm kidding? Go read DU.)

But showing up here and shrieking about how mean everybody is and claiming victimhood doesn't help.

And another hint since you're new here. The commenters on this blog on the whole are basically smart-alecks looking for a good gag. It's kind of ace's schtick, if you haven't noticed. Try to keep that in mind and spare us the histrionics.

Okay, kids, Sandy is partly right about my motives for the circumsion angle.

The point of the question posed to Jason was to demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of gays are seriously pissed off for being "mutilated" by their parents.

Coincidence?
I think not. The gay world revolves around the penis the (lack of) validation from the family, ain't no denying it.

P.S. I'm cut...and I love it! Wouldn't hav it any other way.

Seriously, though, male genital mutilation has to go.

I agree.
But circumcision is not mutilation.
So it's okay.

I love that the conversation has turned to circumcision.

And I think the book scene was presented to show a disgusting (and basically non gay) scene that was fortunately left out of the film.

Circumcision is certainly mutilation.

What else could it be? It has no practical use other than dulling a sensitive organ.

I was cut. I am not upset about it or anything, but I didn't do it to my son. Why would I? Little guy can do it to himself later if he wants, but why would I make that choice for him?

Before we let thist hread die a much deserved death, I would like to ask a question:
Are the knee-jerk "you guys are homophobes" comments based on the (sometimes painfully bad) jokes herein regarding the gay lifestyle? If so, you guys are lame.

I was a theater major. I have been in the minority, more often than not, in the green rooms. Not only would I have been terrified, if the comments weren't so hilarious, but I heard the best, I mean the B.E.S.T. gay jokes, told by the perfect guys using the most perfect voices to tell the jokes. If your telling me that jokes about gays mean I hate gays, your a card short of a deck.

PC

I am not telling you that all people who make jokes about gays hate gays. Some do.

Depends on the joke right?

If I, a white guy, tell lots of "nigger" jokes, am I a racist? Probably.

If I, a straight guy, tell lots of "faggot" jokes, am I a homophobe? Probably.

Depends on the joke and the audience of course.

I think people here are afraid of gays when they talk about how disgusting they are and couldn't even be caught dead in a theater showing this film. Take this post from Chicago Guy:

"[my wife] wouldn't see a movie about gay shepherds cornholing each other. She finds that disgusting. And she can't stand most actors because she says most of them are gay. But she still gives me shit for being intolerant about gays. It's just her way of getting an advantage in the eternal war husband and wives wage over who has "hand.""

Here you have a woman who apparently doesn't like actors because in their private lives, some are gay. And she's the tolerant one in the family!

That guy is a homophobe.

Before we let this thread die a much deserved death . . .

S. Slough,
I've seen the most spectacular flamers put on a bette midler act that was as hilarious as it was spot-on. Very quietly, a gay co actor muttered: "Queen".

To hear one guy, getting riled up at another, exclaim "Listen, sister..." is as funny as it was secretly intended to be.

Your absolutely right, there many true homophobes out there. Not too many in here, as far as I can see. Also, though this is not specific to your statements, there is a huge difference between disgust and hate. I can be disgusted by a dog crapping on a rug, but I don't hate him, or the fact that he did it.

7:00:
Yeah, more's the pity. I meant more specifically to where the thread was heading.

I think Rich is reading too much into the "runaway phenomenon" thing, to the point of confusing two different matters. It's one thing to be all right with gay marriage, and to be bothered by the zeal of some that want to portray gay marriage as the ultimate evil of our time, as a lot of Americans are. It's quite another to want to go see a movie with graphic gay sex scenes.

Thanks Tom M,

I agree with your statement about dogs and shitting on rugs in a way. However, if there was a dog that did something you found disgusting (such as shitting on a rug) as a matter of course, you would hate it. You already hate what it is doing.

For a better analogy, imagine that I said the following:

" I can't stand such and such film because I find two black people having sex to be disgusting. Now I don't hate black people, I just don't want to watch them kissing and screwing."

Would you believe me if I then said that I was not a racist?

(continuing)

My point being, as Ace has suggested, that people are perfectly willing to accept the presence and accomplishments of the homosexual community, but that doesn't mean they want to see the canoodling that goes on behind closed doors.

Some people believe that homosexuality is either a sinful choice or a psychological disorder. They feel like their views are being disrespected by equating them with bigotry.

I also understand why these views are so frustrating for homosexuals. For example, if I were gay, Timmy's theories would really get on my nerves.

But these people are part of the club, too. I disagree with them and make fun of them, but I also know we're not gonna have a useful dialog if I call their views hateful, when what I really mean is that their views are incorrect. Wrong and evil are not the same thing.

Also, Timmy's a big homo. He loves the cock.

If that earlier comment was an actual quote from the book/short story/what the hell ever, then it seems that the author tried to confirm Timmy's/Bart's theories on homosexuality.

there is a huge difference between disgust and hate

"Women want to be satisfied sexually?"

So?

But this is Plano -- not a real part of Texas -- where the tickets are selling.

S. Slough:
Now I don't hate black people, I just don't want to watch them kissing and screwing."

Bad analogy, but I get your point. My point is that, whether conditioned or not, there is a (Visceral?) reaction many straights have at the thought (or image) of homosexual - and I really mean male homosexual- acts. That, in itself, isn't indicative of hate, as much as an either biologically-driven, or humanist-driven reaction.

There are also few things that a dog (or any animal) could do that would actually get me to hate it. Especially knowing that, at will, they can reach under and lick their own - oops, not now. Anyway, the feeling at that point, I would say is more envy than anything else.

I don't expect you to get this considering the lateness of the post, but I wanted to respond anyway.

Seattle-

" I can't stand such and such film because I find two black people having sex to be disgusting. Now I don't hate black people, I just don't want to watch them kissing and screwing."

Would you believe me if I then said that I was not a racist?

Your example really isn't a good analogy - if I was a racist, I wouldn't watch any movie with black people period (at least not ones where black actors play prominent roles), whether it had sex scenes or no. It's not like the sex would be the deal breaker for me, you know?

Also I think the term "disgust" is a bit too strong to accurately describe a lot of straight people's feelings about gay sex (at least the ones I've seen posting hereabouts); I think "bleah" is more on the mark, as in "kinda weird, not appealing - but hey, whatever floats your boat", and this is why alot of straight people (including this one) aren't going to see it.

Gays don't disgust me. Gay sex doesn't disgust me. "Disgust" is the term I would use to describe scat, golden showers, and extreme BDSM, and I'd definitely qualify as being a "phobe" of those practices.

"You're right, Timmy. I got the chop. Can't you read? It's clipped. Get your jargon right if you want to be posting at AoGhey.

Frank Rich is not mentally retarded, he is simply open-minded - a trait which clearly enjoys little traction among the readers here. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality - its origins or its repercussions on American culture - to not watch a movie because that bias is terribly narrow-minded. One of the great things about America is our freedom to educate ourselves through the media that is available to us - learning about people and behaviors that are different, that are new, and perhaps misunderstood.

The beauty of a movie like Brokeback is it allows the watcher to put him or herself in a position that most of us have never been in, and to see life from a perspective that most of us do not have. Only after allowing ourselves that perspective do we have the right to criticize the value of the movie.

But, if you prefer to watch Fox News while drinking bottles of Bud in your double-wide, that's your prerogative. If you have a curiosity about life, about the world around you, and about possible distinctions that make individuals who they are and the cultures they form, then Brokeback Mountain might be intriguing.

As as postcript, for those of you who are truly frightened by the mere sight of male skin, there is very, very little display of actual intercourse.

It's not a very complex issue that requires deep contemplation, Chris.
One does not need to "explore" homosexuality to understand it.

You wrote many, many foolish things in your comment, Chris. But the most assinine was claiming some of us are "frightened by the mere sight of male skin."

You know it was a stupid thing to write, but it seemed somehow better than what you really meant to say: You're close-minded because you don't want to see a homosexual sex act.

Of course that is so ridiculous even you wouldn't say it, but it is what you meant.

Other than that, it was almost a decent comment (except for the Fox News/trailer trash remark -- very childish and very unoriginal). Keep trying; you're making progress.

The beauty of a movie like Brokeback is it allows the watcher to put him or herself in a position that most of us have never been in, and to see life from a perspective that most of us do not have.

If the perspective you're referring to is the view over my shoulder at Ennis, well that's a perspective I'd as soon not have...

(Seeing as how I'm writing this from atop a pile of empty buds in my doublewide over a satellite connection, I see no reason to avoid making juvenile, homophobic wisecracks)

Thanks, Bart. I'm new to commenting on other's blogs, especially less liberal ones, so I'm trying to catch up.

A couple of things here, Bart. First, if we're going to exchange compliments, it strikes me as not-too-enlightened on your part to argue that you can understand something without exploring it. Whether we're talking round-peg-in-the-square-hole problem or astrophysics, we as humans with brains need to explore things - i.e. behavior, science, religions, history, etc. - before we can fully understand them. That's why we sent Buzz and Neil to the moon - because we didn't "understand" it, and needed to "explore" it.

Secondly, by referring to homosexual intercourse as "cornholing" or "delivering the man-meat" (quotes from this thread) is an objectification of the act derived from a fear of it. It's quite clear from many of the comments here that the men are afraid of seeing Heath Ledger's ass.

And finally, I didn't mean to say that it's close-minded not to want to see a homosexual sex act. I don't see a difference in not wanting to see a homo- or a hetero-sexual sex act. If you don't want to see sex, you don't want to see sex. I did mean, through a literary trick called "allusion", that it is close-minded not to see a movie because you might be exposed to something that makes you uncomfortable. That is where narrow-mindedness and lack of curiosity come into play.

Continuing on my "very childish" tack, it's "asinine" - one S. That's two dictionary assigments for you.

God: And so all men will know you are mine, you shall cut away your foreskin, you and all your descendants, which shall number as the stars.

Abraham (looking down): Couldn't I just wear a lapel pin?