homoerotic..
-
littledevilman — 21 years ago(February 17, 2005 09:10 PM)
I dont think they are gay, i think piliot just really wants to be like Jack, in the begining when it had all the falshback beep from when they were kids, there was that one part where Piliot was shootin beep with a water pistol at the carnival and looked all excited cause he thought jack was lookin, but jack was pimpin on thoses to teenage chicks, what else, uh, that part where johnny the fox ask if piliots jelous, which he is thats why hes goin to seattle, i dont know theres other beep but im tired.
-
Aizyk — 20 years ago(April 11, 2005 11:35 PM)
I'm surprised so many people here saw the undertones as well. I saw this on TV yesterday, and while I don't think "they were gay", I think that Gyllenhall's character came off as probably being at least bisexual. But it seemed like his affection for Leto's character was something that he hadn't articulated, either to himself or others. The character didn't seem like someone who would pause to ponder such an issue and its ramifications. Rather, it was something less a matter of "thinking" and more a matter of "feeling/emotion".
And after he came out of the cathouse, didn't he tell Leto's character that they hadn't had sex, and that he'd simply talked to the prostitue like a psychiatrist or something? If I recall correctly, he was so happy because he'd gotten some things off his chest
I do think though that he also had a "crush", if you could call it that, on the girl in Seattle. The one who he felt he'd spent such a meaningful night and connected with, but who later ended up not remembering or recognizing him.
| Fools rush inand get all the best seats. | -
grassroots — 20 years ago(April 22, 2005 01:05 PM)
I dont really think there was any homoeroticism in the movie. The reason pilot didnt like cassie was because she was getting in the middle of his and jack's friendship. it happens quite often.
Also, often best friends begin to act like a married couple just because they know eachother so well. I dont really consider that homoeroticism because if you say it about this movie then you'd have to say it about joey and chandler on friends or the dudes from perfect strangers (with balki.)
on a sidenote, the person that said that in "on the Road" the two main character had a "thing" must have read a different book than the one i read and i've read it many times. -
humiliated_grapes-1 — 20 years ago(December 11, 2005 06:17 PM)
Rebel,
Okay, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this whole thing but many people, and this is where it gets hypocritical in my opinion, get off on two women kissing or being intimate with each other. That's not natural either. I'm not saying that you are one of those people, though I must admit I am curious about your view on the two women thing, I have just heard so many people make that comment then see two women kissing and it's the hottest thing in the world.
Also, any two people who have any form of sexual intercourse risk HIV and other diseases, it's not just guyswomen can get it from each other as well. Also, a man making love to a women can also mean HIV and not a child.
I know that's not really what you were getting at but the phrasing made it so I had to say something.
I guess a lot of this stems up from my slightly feminist ways and how women are fewed as sex objects and men as strong figures. It's okay for two women to be intimate because they are weaker and it turns guys on. But it's not okay for guys to show emotion because it makes them a pussy (I know a very sexist saying, did it to make a point) and grosses guys out. GUYS ARE HUMAN! They give into their emotions and their feelings and if they want to be close to another man (once again not saying whether I agree or not) let them. It's happening, it's been happening for most of history. If there is a time when it wasn't mentioned it's because it was hidden, not because it didn't exist (like most of history).
I think I'm done now, I wasn't expecting that to go on that long. Sorry.
Mary -
RebelMas — 19 years ago(June 08, 2006 08:55 AM)
Mary,
Thanks for the well-thought out reply. I absolutely agree with you on the hypocrisy of many guys in this matter. I will say this: Morally, I agree that any kind of homosexual behavior is wrong (that doesn't mean the people are evil, or freaks, or anything like that, but the act is always wrong). However, two attractive women behaving this way does not physically revulse me like two menthis is culturally the way I and most guys are wired. I agree with you on that double standard.
Maybe I should have phrased it like this: If men and women followed God's plan (referring to the God of the Bible), and saved themselves sexually for their heterosexual spouses, there would be no HIV/AIDS epidemic. Many healthy, happy babies would be born.
You say "if guys want to be close, let them." I agree with this (as long as they keep their parades to themselves).
However (getting off topic to my real strong feeling on the subject), what I will not "let" is for them to try to change what marriage has been for all these years and adopt children. People say "oh, it's better for them to have loving parents." Wrong. I've worked with troubled kids for almost 10 years now, and almost without fail (although there are some single mothers who have done AMAZING jobs)the kids who struggle the most are the ones without their mom and dad at home with them. It's been proven over and over again kids need a strong male and female role modelnot 2 females or 2 men who act like females.
Don't apologize for going long. It's been a pleasure.
~R -
marleyzr — 20 years ago(January 14, 2006 11:03 AM)
scuze me, but BULL. The ancient greeks saw homosexuality as and exhalted form of male friendship. Other early cultures saw it as normal. It is just recently that they have criminalized it. And r u forgetting that whole deal about HIV being passed from man to woman also, or are you conveniently leaving it out to prove your (wrong) point??
-
RebelMas — 19 years ago(June 08, 2006 08:45 AM)
Eh, health class was a waste of time. Yes, not every heterosexual encounter results in a baby (thank God), and HIV can be spread that waybut it was homosexual behavior that made it spread like wildfire (if not actually started it, as many theories say).
I appreciate you trying to be politically correct and tolerant, but homosexuality is not natural and has little to do with love. I don't want to be vulgar, but sodomy is extremely painful for any species.
~Rebek -
Aizyk — 20 years ago(June 20, 2005 06:14 PM)
I dont really consider that homoeroticism because if you say it about this movie then you'd have to say it about joey and chandler on friends or the dudes from perfect strangers (with balki.)
I never watched Perfect Strangers, but there were plenty of "homoerotic" situations on Friends. Maybe not specifically between Chandler and Joey. But numerous comments were made throughout the show about the assumption that Chandler was gay, such as in the episode where a coworker tries to set him up with another guy. And then there was the episode where Ross and Joey would take secret snuggle naps together. And the episode where Joey pressures Ross to make out with him to help him with a role he's auditioning for, and Ross finally gives in.
Hollywood needs less homoeroticism, not more.
I don't hate gay people. But seeing two guys kiss literally makes my skin crawl. Not because they're evil people, not because I'm insecure, but because it's just not natural.
We're all surrounded by a million "unnatural" things everyday, but that in and of itself isn't cause for anyone's skin to crawl. It's probably pointless to debate whether or not homosexuality itself is natural or unnatural. But a compilation containing case studies of homosexuality in hundreds of animals of various species all over the world can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031225377X/qid=1119315949/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-9165806-5363312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
| Fools rush inand get all the best seats. |