Homosexuality is not disturbing, but that 2 men cannot be close without it being interpreted as homosexuality, is. Why,
-
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 11:20 AM)
I did read the book, and it is excellent. (Actually, the movie is one of the rare cases where it equals the original novel) The cover of the book describes Joe as having come from an awkward, friendless childhood who only receives a sort of vague, sexually colored attention from his grandmother. He comes to the big city with nave, completely unrealistic expectations and quickly finds himself in dire circumstances. Through fate, he and Rico become somewhat unlikely friends. But it is also the first genuine friendship Joe has ever known. It is also a testament to the true goodness of Joe's soul. After Rico passes away (this is directly from the book), Joe now knows what true loss feel like and for the first time in his life, he
feels
the true, profound fear of loneliness. It is a bone chilling, haunting truism.
I don't think that their relationship is homosexual in nature. I do think that they are both lost souls, and their mutual need for human contact and affection runs so deeply that when they do find each other, any other considerations, e.g., social norms and appearances, count for absolutely nothing. They are both so utterly lonely and alone in the world that to quibble about how their friendship might appear to the outside world would be to deny their deep, human need for connection. The kinship between Joe and Rico is stronger and more authentic than most.
To put it another way, their relationship is not gay, but it's also not not gay. It transcends the notion. -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:40 PM)
^^This.
It should be noted that the author, James Leo Herlihy, was gay and described on his Wikipedia page as "a friend of Tennessee Williams."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Leo_Herlihy
I still like the above description of "not not gay" and the idea that their love for each other transcended such notions. They were everything to each other. -
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 08:05 PM)
Hey bliss66 I am pleased that you liked the "not not gay" notion.
But you and a few others have got me thinking about the two men, Joe in particular. I love this movie, it's definitely in my top ten favorite movies. And I love the book as well. I am a 45 year old gay man and have been "out" to others since I was 19, and out to myself since well before that. So there is no reason why I would ever have any problem with gay characters in a movie. But this is literally the first time that I ever even considered that maybe Joe Buck was, in fact, homosexual. Up to now, I just thought that Joe's ego was so underdeveloped and, because of his backwards upbringing, his needs were so profound that he would be open to sexual/romantic/friendly attention from members of either gender.
I guess it ultimately doesn't matter to me (actually I kind of would like Joe to be gay, in a way, because he is so damned cute and sweet and I would love to take care of him!), but do you, as an informed and interested observer/fan, truly believe that Joe Buck was a gay man?
I am genuinely curious. -
Edward_de_Vere — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 03:33 PM)
They were platonic friends. Joe was more than likely 'bisexual' anyway, so that doesn't make him a 'gay' person.
Since the film is fairly explicit about other sexual acts, if Joe and Ratso were lovers there would have been something in the film to indicate this was so. There wasn't, so those who insist that they were are creating fan fiction, rather discussing the film. As the OP says, I never could understand the mindset that wants to turn every friendship between men into a tale of homosexuality.
As to Joe's sexuality, my take is that he was essentially a heterosexual man who reluctantly engaged in homosexual acts for money. Sort of the reverse of someone like would-be Warhol assassin Valerie Solanas, a lesbian who would have sex with men for pay. "Situational" homosexuality (e.g. homosex in prison, straight men prostituting themselves) doesn't make a straight person bisexual any more than incidental heterosexual acts make essentially homosexual people bisexual. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 04:28 PM)
As to Joe's sexuality, my take is that he was essentially a heterosexual man who reluctantly engaged in homosexual acts for money.
Yes, essentially and Joe appeared very confident at the start, as to what he wanted and what his aim was in NY. However, hustling one a$$ for money, in front of a cinema, where there were other options available to Joethe film alluded to this, when he could have worked in a dineris also revealing.
"Situational" homosexuality (e.g. homosex in prison, straight men prostituting themselves) doesn't make a straight person bisexual any more than incidental heterosexual acts make essentially homosexual people bisexual.
I don't really get this 'situational' sex thing. There will be many males in situations where they are surrounded by 'only' men and wouldn't care to engage in sexual activity with them, because they are genuine 'straight'. I can only speak for myself here; but as a 100% 'genuine' gay guy, why would I engage in 'situational' sex, if there were only women around? I can't and am not capable of this. My sexuality is innate.
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, alluded that Joe was raped as well. Wouldn't that put him off sex with men? Joe did NOT have an issue hustling his a$$. He would have had 'bisexual' tendencies and this is a 'genuine' sexual orientation. As for women like Solanaswho was a fruitcake anywaysexuality is different for them and has more of mystical element about it. They have a different set of genitalia and not as aggressive or positive as a males sexuality. They don't need to get 'arousal' hard. Lesbians will be comfortable with women; but I would say it would be a darn sight easier for them to have sex with men, than a 'gay' guy attempting to have sex with women.
Are you 'straight' Ed? -
Edward_de_Vere — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 06:45 AM)
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, alluded that Joe was raped as well. Wouldn't that put him off sex with men? Joe did NOT have an issue hustling his a$$.
The point is that Joe didn't seek out gay sex and there's no evidence that he would engage in it at all if money weren't an issue. Obviously he wasn't as averse to it as most heterosexual men, but I wouldn't call a straight man who reluctantly engages in homosexual acts "bisexual" any more than I would call a homosexual man in a sham marriage to a woman who reluctantly engages in sex with her as "bisexual."
I don't really get this 'situational' sex thing. There will be many males in situations where they are surrounded by 'only' men and wouldn't care to engage in sexual activity with them, because they are genuine 'straight'. I can only speak for myself here; but as a 100% 'genuine' gay guy, why would I engage in 'situational' sex, if there were only women around? I can't and am not capable of this. My sexuality is innate.
People of all sexual orientations use various outlets when their partners of choice are unavailable. For a lot of people it's their hand, for others it's blow-up dolls, animals, or people of the sex opposite to their partners of choice. A straight man in prison who has sex with other men when there are no women around isn't doing it because of any innate attraction to other men, any more than other men have any innate attraction to their hands or to inflatable dolls. I would argue that "situational" homosexuality by straight people or situational heterosexuality by homosexuals is usually just a willingness to use a non-preferred outlet for sex, not evidence of bisexual attraction. Some people are simply less averse to using alternative outlets than others.
Are you 'straight' Ed?
Yes, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the merits of the point that I'm making. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 04:53 PM)
The point is that Joe didn't seek out gay sex and there's no evidence that he would engage in it at all if money weren't an issue.
Joe didn't seek out 'gay' sex, he was seeking out homosexual activity to make money. Being 'gay' is a sexual orientation and not so much about 'just' having physical 'homosexual' sex. Joe didn't need to hustle himself, when there were other options available to him. A so-called 'straight' guy, who can bring himself to have sex with the same gender, is engaging in 'bi-sexual' activity. If it was an issue with him and he was 100% straight, he would have likely found it repulsive and wouldn't have done it. Isn't that the 'accepted' attitude, by most of the general public, that the physical act of 'homosexual' sex is repulsive to many?
.I would argue that "situational" homosexuality by straight people or situational heterosexuality by homosexuals is usually just a willingness to use a non-preferred outlet for sex, not evidence of bisexual attraction
Blah, blah, blah. The 'willingness', has to be born out of 'desire' and physical attraction, in order to perform. Of course it is evidence of male 'bisexual' attraction, if lust\arousal occurs for the same gender, when the opposite gender would 'usually' attract. That includes man on man rape too and while control\power can play an aspect over the victim, it is something that is still inherent within the assailant.
Are you 'straight' Ed?
Yes, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the merits of the point that I'm making.
Yes, I think you do and you are just being obtuse. I asked, because I wanted to know if your take on 'bi-sexuality', is due to you being 'straight' and my pov is from the perception of a 'genuine' 100% 'gay' guy. By what you have said, you make it sound that you would engage in 'situational' sex, with the same gender, if you were 'desperate' for an outlet? That sounds like a base animal instinct to me . Why would you act like an animal, when there is no 'genuine' desire or connection to engage in homosexual activity in the first place. I really don't think you have an understanding of 'bisexuality' or 'homosexuality' and that is because you are 'heterosexual'. Most don't. Or is it because while the desire is 'actually' there, it is perceived as a negative stigma, to be labelled 'bisexual'?
-
Edward_de_Vere — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 12:25 PM)
The 'willingness', has to be born out of 'desire' and physical attraction, in order to perform.
So people who masturbate are physically attracted to their hands? People who resort to blow-up dolls necessarily have a fetish for plastic dolls?
By what you have said, you make it sound that you would engage in 'situational' sex, with the same gender, if you were 'desperate' for an outlet? That sounds like a base animal instinct to me . Why would you act like an animal, when there is no 'genuine' desire or connection to engage in homosexual activity in the first place.
This isn't about me or about you. The point is that there are a lot of people who find sexual outlets for their "base animal instincts" with something other than their preferred partner of choice. Some people have very strong sex drives, and if you deprive them of their preferred partners, they can engage in sex and perform with people (or animals, or inanimate objects) that they have no attraction to. Or, to use less extreme examples, a lot of heterosexual men will have sex with women who they find ugly when all of the attractive ones are taken. Presumably a lot of homosexual men will do the same with ugly male partners when nothing better is available.
I really don't think you have an understanding of 'bisexuality' or 'homosexuality' and that is because you are 'heterosexual'.
I suppose that my understanding of homosexuality is no worse or no better than your understanding of heterosexuality. You don't have to be something in order to understand it, otherwise male writers or filmmakers wouldn't be able to create convincing female fictional characters or vice-versa. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 07:41 PM)
So people who masturbate are physically attracted to their hands? People who resort to blow-up dolls necessarily have a fetish for plastic dolls?
Come on Mr. Ed!
Pardon the pun
. Do you really think that when a guy jerks off, they are lusting after their hand? They may like the sensation it presents; but what is the mind doing? It is more than likely fantasizing about who it wants to have sex with. There may be a fine line; but I see 'sex' and f^@k!n@ as not quite one and the same. They could be mutually exclusive, if you take penetration or climax out of the picture. f^@k!n@ is more about a base 'animal' action and looking for a quick release, whereas 'sex' is more about the whole and revelling in what it can entail. It might be blowing in a persons ear and staring into their eyes. It might be about the feet the legs the hands and just touch.
If a so-called 'straight' guy is going to 'f^@k' another guy, just for a 'situational' outlet, that is base and animal. And guess what, he is not 'fully' straight either. A 100% genuine 'straight' guy, is NOT going to want to fornicate with another male.
This isn't about me or about you.
Of course it is. It is about human 'sexual' behavior we are discussing and you are part of the human race aren't you? I have commented that I 'wouldn't' be-able to have sex with a female, as a 'genuine' 'gay' guy; even if the 'situation' presented itself; but you 'haven't' commented if you would be-able to have sex with another 'male', if you were feeling horny and in a 'situational' position where only males were around. This is your point, you have brought up. Is that because of the 'negative' stigma that gets placed on 'homosexual' activity, because it is not the 'accepted' norm in society? What would people think?
Joe Buck did what he did, because he could and while he may have looked nervous about it, it wasn't a problem for him. Now, the kid he picked up was 'gay'; but Joe Buck was 'bisexual', because he CHOSE to hustle his a$$ when he could have been washing dishes. The film doesn't show any other sexual encounters he had with males; but it alluded that he may have had more male clients, just before he went to give blood.
Some people have very strong sex drives, and if you deprive them of their preferred partners, they can engage in sex and perform with people (or animals, or inanimate objects) that they have no attraction to.
My case in point. They should have a w@^k then. Base, animalistic attitude and behavior.
.a lot of heterosexual men will have sex with women who they find ugly when all of the attractive ones are taken. Presumably a lot of homosexual men will do the same with ugly male partners when nothing better is available.
Who knows what the attraction, desire and need is for each individual. I have found some men, who I may have found 'undesirable' on first meetings and then gotten to know them better and have changed my stance on how I feel about them physically. It depends on ones notion of 'ugly' too, as that can be subjective. I can't speak for a 'heterosexual' male; but I have been attracted to many men, that have been with women that I would deem 'average' or 'ugly' and wonder why they would even want to go there. Lets face it, women aren't always the more 'attractive' sex, just by virtue of their 'softer' gender and what our gynocentric society promotes and wants us to believe. Physical attraction is fluid for many different reasons and like I have mentioned earlier, is it 'sex' or 'f^@k!n@ one is after. Maybe a bit of both; but the desire for a person and their own orientation is innate. That includes 'bisexuality'.
I suppose that my understanding of homosexuality is no worse or no better than your understanding of heterosexuality. You don't have to be something in order to understand it, otherwise male writers or filmmakers wouldn't be able to create convincing female fictional characters or vice-versa.
See, this is where the line blurs. We are all a byproduct of 'heterosexual' breeding and each of us, whether male or female, have aspects of both genders within us. Much of how we are supposed to behave or what is expected of us, is a conditioning that can get imposed onto us. It is 'sissy' and 'girly', for a little boy to play with girls, yet he is then expected to make a lifelong partner and friend out of a female, when he is older. Girls may not generally like to play with boys, because they are 'icky', yet are needy for them, when they get older. Go figure!
I would say, human 'sexuality' is about evolving and I may be biased here, but I do see 'homosexuality' as a more 'advanced' form of sexuality. If a male can embrace his own gender and fully appreciate it and physically share and express that with another man, then I would say the masculine and feminine qualities within him, are either more balanced, or more in tune with his own maleness and being. It can bring out the best of both masc -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 02:08 AM)
if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.
I think you're reading 'way' too much into the movie. It doesn't matter what their orientation is, it is a film about friendship and caring and these 2 men who had nothing, were looking out for each other. Becasue the director was 'gay' and Joe hustled himself, doesn't mean that we need to 'accept' that Joe and Ratso were 'gay' for each other. Why are people reading this into it? Their sexuality, is incongruous, to what the main theme of the film is.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 12:26 PM)
'obviously not every gay relationship is sexual in nature, and if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.'
That makes a lot of sense. Not every gay relationship is sexual in nature because then it would no longer be sexual. That's "obvious", alright. We're not ignoring a lot of the movie. Are you even understanding the movie??
Now, this hypothesis naturally doesn't work with 2 females in the same situation what a surprise. -
upsydaisy29 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 07:18 AM)
i dont even get wat ur tryin 2 say here but if u read the article someone linked u would kno that the actors played the characters as 'queer', meaning they were in a relationship of som kind ..maybe a romantic friendship ?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendships
-
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 05:21 PM)
Not to get too militant here but I would make this suggestion for your consideration: there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread. That, in fact, seems to be the thrust of it. It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees.
The author was gay. The director was gay. The actors acknowledged they were playing characters in a same-sex, romantic relationship. Enrico is clearly in love with Joe Buck. The idea that there is anything certain about Joe Buck's sexuality or even psychology, misses the whole experience of a character whom by film's end is just beginning to know himself.
You think because he is presented as a sex toy "bauble" for two women who want to use him for sex - like his grandmother did - makes him a stone, cold heterosexual Marlboro Man? The very fact that this detail concerns you, from your original post, can be considered homophobic. You just want assurance that this film that engaged and moved you isn't about two dudes who are into each other because, y'know, then you wouldn't be able to like it or something. Who knows why it matters? As a gay man, James Leo Herlihy didn't have to write in coded language or accommodate your mainstream sensibility by labelling and tagging everything so you would know whether or not it was all right for you to like it - he obviously didn't care. But why would a gay man bother to write your story? He's depicting love as he knows it. It's almost like you're trying to claim this for yourself when in fact what these men shared doesn't belong to you. And in depicting the love these men shared on the margins of society, Herlihy humanised figures that especially at that time no one even wanted to know about. Fifty years later, neither do you.
I think what is the insult here is that you seem to think that unless there is oral or anal sex involved, people are not gay as if that were the sum total of our humanity - as if the depth of humanity depicted in the film is something gay people lack. I alluded to it in my original post - it was lost on you there - that I have seen this love before and watched grown men love and care for each, in the despair of the most wretched disease, men whose lovers have died in their arms, men who have loved and lost - and I didn't need to see them having sex with each other to confirm that they were indeed gay and sharing every intimacy between them, not just sex.
So either your view of human relationships is somehow limited or your view of same sex couples is very limited. Either way, your opening gambit which tries to shut down any notion of what these men shared and your refusal to consider not just an opposing view but an INFORMED one, seems to indicate that it is a problem for you. It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right. -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 05:52 PM)
I'm not reading your essay. The first sentences summed you up. It's not homo-hysteria, at least not in the way you mean. You have no idea of the sexual=preference of anybody on this thread, for starters. You're homo-hysterical because you think homophobia is present, due to you wanting thee to be a homosexual relationship between the two characters. I'll bet if the two lead actors were not reasonably goodlooking, you wouldn't even dream about the notion.
Let's never-mind what the film showed but rush out and buy the book, and determine the director's sexuality, to discover some underlying theme. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 09:35 PM)
there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread..It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees.It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
Let's put it this way, the OP is in the closet and is a 'self-loathing' homosexual. He is as NELLIE as they come and he won't and can't admit it. So as far as seeing it from a 'heterosexual' pov, I think that notion, can pretty much get thrown out the window. I haven't yet read the book and while it is a possibility that Joe and Ratso, may have had some sexual designs on each other, I really don't think that was something, or is something, that is 'absolutely' necessary to read into the film. These guys found a common connection with each other and were looking out for each other, as they were both in a 'desperate' situation and their needs were better met, by the union. It was Ratso that offered Joe a place to stay and he was called out on his deception. He still had humanity.
Ratso was gross and dirty and while he may have had 'homosexual' designs on Joe, and that is very possible, it is not something that I feel is important in the context of the films themes and story. Joe was not 'gay', in the sense that I perceive 'gay' to be. He had sex with women and even if it might not have been his preferred choice of gender, he could still 'perform' sexually with them. That would make him 'bisexual' by my book. A true, genuine 'gay' guy, does not and cannot perform sexually with a woman. He is not aroused, by her sexual mystique and physicality. To want these characters to be full blown homosexuals, can be seen as a delusion as well. -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 26, 2015 06:38 PM)
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley until she became combative and goaded him into having rough sex with her which he later described to Enrico as not very good and strange, off-putting.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 27, 2015 04:47 AM)
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley.
No I didn't miss that scene; but it appears ONCE AGAIN, that you have misinterpreted it. Shirley was impressed with Joe by the morning and making arrangements to see him again and wanting to hook him up with another female friend of hers. She was like a feline, all slinky, sexy and haughty and scratched the hell out of Joe's back. It was the weird, kinky sex, that Joe was referring to as being strange and off-putting. I think you 'miss' many things, due to your own strange and self-absorbed slant on things.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements.
I don't think you even understand what 'gay' is or male homosexuality for that matter, even though it has been explained to you. Sit on what was written for a while and with any luck, it 'just' might sink in. I won't hold my breath though.