Joe was just acting, in real life. Acting gay does not make one a gay. One of the most stunning examples is the acting of John Michael Higgins in the movie,
Best in Show
. Joe Buck did what he had to do to survive. He was clearly a heterosexual. Like I stated in my review "Sexual behavior can be controlled, sexual preference
cannot
.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

I agree they were both straight, Joe did play half a f*g in the movie when he needed movie though but he was straight, prostitution is about paying money for sex and paying customers come in both genders, i think that female prostitutes would have sex with other women if they were given money in exchange for it, green is what matters, why would a broke down Hustler like Joe Buck turn down a man willing to pay him money for sex it he was broke and had no money left?
Doesnt make someone gay, just broke and desperate, even McDonalds allows Homeless people to come inside and buy food from the menu if they have enough money to pay for a meal, because green is still green, a gay man still has green money just like rich women have green money.

I just watched it and I don't see Buck and Rizzo being portrayed as gay.

One of the most common questions posed after viewing Midnight Cowboy is Is Joe Buck gay? or Did Joe and Ratso have a homosexual relationship? The answer to both questions is a resounding No!
Totally agree

Agreed. I read your entire review. This film worked on every level. A brilliant depiction of character revelation and development as two souls find each other.
Thanks for reading. The information is readily out there if people will just look for it instead of just jumping to the most obvious (and incorrect) conclusion.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

Agreed. I read your entire review. This film worked on every level. A brilliant depiction of character revelation and development as two souls find each other.

Here is my take in my review
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/22307/midnight-cowboy/
Homosexuality

• There has been much written, speculated and discussed about homosexuality in Midnight Cowboy, really TOO much. The reason I write this is that it is obvious that many who do this speculation have not taken the time to either read the book or to view the film and the associated commentaries. There also seems to be confusion as to the difference between homosexuality, homosexual behavior, homophobia and homoeroticism. All of these exist in the movie, but it is up to the viewer to separate the various behaviors as they relate to the respective characters. There is one basic premise about sexuality that must be understood before you can begin to understand the sexuality that is portrayed in the film. Here is the concept and fact: Sexual behavior can be controlled, sexual preference cannot.
  There are three scenes in Midnight Cowboy that vividly showed homosexual activity
  . All three scenes associated homosexual behavior with violence. The scene in the movie house was haunting and brilliant with the use of the musical score and flashbacks. This scene seems rather innocuous now, but was responsible for the MPAA giving the film an X Rating. Joe was so desperate and naive that he even got swindled by a mousy little college kid played by Bob Balaban, and came away with nothing but more frustration. The second scene was a flashback dream-state that gave some insight to why Joe was so damaged sexually; both he and his girlfriend were brutalized and raped by a gang of his peers back in Texas. The third, and most brutal scene was with Towny, played by Barnard Hughes, a self-loathing mommas boy of a closeted homosexual. Joe robbed and beat his trick because of his desperation for money to get himself and his buddy Ratso to Florida. The novel by Herlihy graphically describes yet another nightmare scene in Texas where Joe was betrayed and brutalized by his newfound friend Perry, but this event did not make it into the movie.
  One of the most common questions posed after viewing Midnight Cowboy is Is Joe Buck gay? or Did Joe and Ratso have a homosexual relationship?
  The answer to both questions is a resounding No! Now Joe Buck certainly participated in homosexual behavior, this cannot be denied. Yes, he looked gay in his ridiculous cowboy getup, but he was not a gay, he was merely a straight man who was forced to do things that he otherwise would not have done. In desperation, Joe turned tricks with homosexuals to survive, but this behavior did not make him a homosexual. Joe also had some horrific and unimaginable unwanted homosexual experiences in Texas that went a long way in further degrading his already fragile psyche; but none of these things made him a homosexual. As far as Joe and Ratso were concerned, they were both extremely deprived and broken human beings, Ratso physically and Joe psychologically. Joe and Ratso formed a family unit, as bizarre and fragile as it was, nothing more. Ratso Rizzo gave every indication of being asexual, mostly because of his debilitated physical condition, but nothing indicated that he had any sort of a sexual interest in Joe or anyone else. Ratso, being crippled, used his homophobic rhetoric as sort of a bravado because of his own diminished physical condition.
  Even Schlesinger himself laughed when questioned about the possibility of a homosexual relationship between Joe and Ratso, noting that the film was hard enough to sell as it was without having that burden as well
  . He (John Schlesinger) knew he was taking on a load with this movie, because he was a rare openly gay man himself. Midnight Cowboy was a bold experiment for not only focusing on male homosexuality, but also attacking the great American institution of masculinity itself, and the celebrated image of the Cowboy as being the very embodiment of masculinity. Are you going to tell me John Wayne was a fag? was uttered by Joe Buck when Ratso hit him with the reality that his cowboy gig was not what he thought it was. 42nd Street had spoken and this was not something that Joe was ready to hear.
  Goat at Ruthless Reviews

What if they were women?

Joe and Ratso loved each other by the end, but weren't in love with each other. There's a huge difference.

Ultimately it was a story about finding friendship in the most unlikely of ways. A sensational film!
Exactly. Homosexuality is not a real subject. Accusation of it is used to diminish Joe's masculinity by Ratso, but it's really just empty insult. The film is about lonely people who find each other as friends. The novel is much more explicit about homosexuality. It's well worth a read, especially if you love the film as I do.

Agreed. Ultimately it was a story about finding friendship in the most unlikely of ways. A sensational film!

This message has been deleted.

All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with,
'Necessarily' is the key word. There is a spectrum of sexuality. People fall all along it based on a mixture of nature & nurture. It's not black and white. Why would you think there is a simple explanation to something that nobody can explain?
I
'
m a real kewl kat
.

All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with, which I think is fraud as there are plenty of Twins who are 1 of each, if its genetic then it should either or. Traumatic childhood incidents can so F up your mind that your standards of what you will or will not do, no matter what, to survive, may hinge on those early experiences.

'Did no one here read the novel?'
Why should we? The film is not the novel, and the novel is not a prerequisite to watch the film. I don't' care about the novel, nor should anyone else who relies on the film.

They were linked together because they both had to survive. Joe Buck was an idealist who thought that he would be a street hustler in New York where women would pay him. Ratso was a survivalist who did what he could to save himself. The kindness that they eventually showed each other wasn't love or repressed feelings. It was an acknowledgment that they were working together to make their lives better.

Yeah, I thought you were Paranoid-Roegian for some reason. That's the weirdo I was responding to sorry. I better go to bed.
I
'
m a real kewl kat
.

I agree, But you asked why I label them. You may have misunderstood my stance.

I was responding to you. I just didn't care about the sexual orientation of Joe or Rico. However, it seemed obvious that Joe was a straight guy who only dabbled in homosexuality when times got tough. Yes, he wanted to make money by having sex with women but he actually was excited about that. He only did gay stuff out of desperation and he never enjoyed it in any of the scenes were it happened. He was ashamed only because that's not who he was. With Rico, it was vague. But I didn't care and I don't think anybody else did, either. I just felt bad for his situation as a human. He was so sick and miserable, I doubt sexual feelings were even on his mind. He just seemed to eventually appreciate Joe as a friend.
I
'
m a real kewl kat
.

Kewl_Kat
who are you replying to re: labeling everybody? Since I mostly agree with what you said, and have for years, I didn't know who you were addressing. However, it's only irrelevant to the story if the story does not have homosexuality as a theme.

Most likely, neither one of the characters were homosexual and even if they were, it's totally irrelevant to the story. They are just two humans trying to survive in horrible conditions and broken mental states and they form a strange bond while doing so. Why do you feel the need to label everybody?
I
'
m a real kewl kat
.

'But they were both damaged mentally.so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right.'
How are you so sure? You casually equate being "damaged mentally" to whoring oneself to other men. Is that because homosexuality is frivolous and not as solid as heterosexuality to you? As if you are even educated on what mentally-damaged is.

I really don't care what Dustin Hoffman or the director said. I watched the movie.and Joe and Ratso didn't seem gay. Especially not with each other.
But they were both damaged mentally.so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right.

Are we watching the film or novel? Which one are we watching? Look at the film and tell me if it's a movie or a book? There is no evidence, none, of repressed homosexuality/bisexuality. No evidence that one or the other was horny for the other. And interesting that you never used the term BISEXUALITY in your remarks.
Why critique the Wizard of Oz, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Psycho, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Monster a Go-Go, since we didn't read the "book?"