.does interpreting the characters as anything other than straight get u so mad????

upsydaisy,
read all the other posts here. No-one is claiming they are full blown 'straight'; but by that same token, that doesn't mean they have to be full blown 'homosexual' for each other either. Does it titilate you, to think that they are? It is NOT important or relevant to the films story, what their sexual designs are for each other, if their characters were supposed to have any at all.

I'm not hiding. I just don't think you've contributed anything that requires a response. What am I supposed to do about your closed-minded ignorance? It's not my problem.

Why are you using y r u?
There is no more to think about. I saw the film 40 yrs ago, to give me time to think. Why am I mad? Why are you, and the other poster who hides, re-writing the film, to make it more sensationalistic for yourselves? You can watch a nice soft-core film if you wish to see latent/overt homosexuality. THIS film was not written that way. You can dig deep and say Joe was from Mars too, but it was not clued that way either.

y r u so angry bout this???? y does interpreting the characters as anything other than straight get u so mad????just think about it 4 a sec

'i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently '
Duh, you don't what you mean. You just wanted to use the term "homophobia". There is no homophobia going on. Would you like there to be? You must be hetero-phobia. Are you in denial? How sad.
You're telling me with a straight face that because the director/writer is gay, then that makes the film characters gay in this film. I was actually being sarcastic with that question, and you reply by saying "yes". The film on the screen is not what if could / should/ would have been, but what it was.
The "y, r, u" of the matter. You should be so much in denial of being illiterate.

i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial?

Well in the OP's case, yes he is in denial, about many things actually; but in this instance, he isn't.
???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of .?

Since you are not that smart and have misinterpreted the film, it is no use attempting to explain what 'askew' means. When you stop looking at things, from your own 'limited' perception of the world and only seeing things in the manner of how they affect youwhich is being self-entitled & self-absorbedthen you 'just' might understand one day.

Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay.
i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently
I think bliss66's, pov is a tad askew, just as yours is upsydaisy.
???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of .?

This message has been deleted.

upsydaisy29
Whats so very true. That men engage in heterosexual sexual acts, but "not" heterosexual? This bliss66 is pretentious and actually demeaning his own homosexuality by homogenizing sexuality.
"no, these men show no display of homosexuality nor sexual feelings, but sexuality goes beyond sex and reaches into our soul and deeper consciousness and blah,blah"and we are all threatened and frighted by this,blah,blah."
Sounds like bliss66 is dissapointed that Buck and Ritzo are are not gay, which must frustrate him on some level, and everybody who has seen the film has not discovered the mysterious thing that he has.
Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay.

@bliss66's post: very true, and well said

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.

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.

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.

You thought Rico was that good-looking?

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.

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.

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

'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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'?

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.