Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis)

[AZ.bbm]

Sandy,

No, I've had enough of 'Skinner-Rodgers' to last me the rest of my life, thanks. 

[AZ.bbm]

Personally, I would like a world where there were no stereotypes, ...

Love doesn't so much supercede orientation as to demonstrate to us what our orientation is, even in the face of our own rationalisations.

I was just thinking the same thing...  Love is not a 'tool'  but it has lessons to teach; more likely we as human beings are Love's tools (-or we should be).

[Paul029]

I thought this exchange was worthy of some clarification:

   a) From 1944 to the summer of 1963 he was a typical child & teenager; his sexual orientation is unknown but it’s presumed to  be heterosexual, in keeping with his upbringing (and his engagement to Alma Beers);

Paul, could you clarify for me whether you believe that someone's upbringing determines his sexual orientation. Thanks.

~ What I meant was that there’s nothing in the story at this stage of its chronology to contradict a reader’s implicit understanding that Ennis is anything but heterosexual. ~

Paul,
Forgive me for pointing this out, but you didn't answer Sandy's question...

I'm sure that Sandy—should he agree—will let me know in due course, Stan.  

You DIDN'T answer the question, whether Sandy replies or not.

Actually, I think he did. I suspected that out of enthusiasm, he rushed the formulation of what he wanted to say. My question asked whether he wanted to "own" a consequence of the "literal" position he had taken. His reply is that he did not, and he came back with an answer that seemed better to match what I think he was trying to get to in the first place. So, yes, he did.

The issue wasn’t, as was suggested above, whether or not Sandy replied, but whether he agreed (that I’d not answered his question).  

Thank you, Sandy—not only for your perceptive interpretation of my reply, but also for your rebuttal of the nay-sayers.  

But it gets better:

No; although he certainly may have inferred that from the question...
Your actual question inquires as to whether he personally believes in 'nurture over nature.'

Please note, Stan, that I originally asked for a clarification. And Paul gave it to me. (My emphases.)

Heavens to Betsy—all this was about one point in my very first post on the actual topic!
 
Goodness knows what'll happen when I eventually post my thoughts about Ennis's sexuality....  
 
What I really enjoyed was being talked about in the third person.  
(Joke!)

[Paul029]

~  I've had enough of 'Skinner-Rodgers' to last me the rest of my life, thanks. 

I have no idea what this means. 

Is it some sort of private, esoteric joke, understood only by the cogniscenti?

[Paul029]

How can we choose who we fall in love with?
Isn't that the whole point of Brokeback Mountain ultimately?

Fair point.

Ennis didn't want to be gay and he didn't want to fall in love with Jack, did he?
Love is beyond the rational mind.
It shows us our true needs and desires, as they are and not as we want them to be.

Excuse me for asking, Jess, but where exactly in the SS does he actually state that he doesn't want to be "gay?"

My apologies if this is out-of-context, but I'd really like to know...

[Paul029]

~snip ~
There is a whole range of human behaviour sexually, physical functioning, intellectual, and learning, among them, (some even include race and gender), and decide on a norm that we are all supposed to fit, the pain that is caused by trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and we are all square pegs in some ways, is immense, and is entirely a social confection.

Are you referring to what I'd describe as "labelling?"
If so, I agree wholeheartedly—it's reprehensible. 

I especially liked your reference to "intellectual" (norms.) There's a bit of that sort of discrimination even here. 

On the whole nature, or if you prefer, God, wants all of the different types of people that it, or he/she, creates, because they are beneficial to society and are needed.

That implies a Grand Plan. It's possible that it isn't, you know... 

Further—and I really take exception to this—are you now nature's (or, perish the thought, God's) "mouthpiece?" 

I feel that the reason that Jack and Ennis resonated with us all here so strongly, is because this sort of srereotyping behaviour affects us all in some way, and it does not have to be anything to do with sexuality.

So now you speak for all DCF members—or, only some (and which ones would they be, I wonder)?

Just asking... 

[AZ.bbm]

No, I've had enough of 'Skinner-Rogers' to last me the rest of my life, thanks. 

I have no idea what this means. 
Is it some sort of private, esoteric joke, understood only by the cogniscenti?

No, it references the very extended classic debate between two acclaimed psychologists, Carl Rogers, the humanist, and B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist, centers around whether you were born with certain traits and proclivities ("nature"), or whether these were acquired, later, via your upbringing ("nurture").

The 'Skinner vs. Rogers' Debate is one of the linchpins of undergrad psychology and sociology courses in the U.S.

[Paul029]

No, it references the very extended classic debate between two acclaimed psychologists, B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist, and Carl Rogers, the humanist, centered around whether one is born with certain traits and proclivities ("nature"), or whether these are acquired later, via one's upbringing ("nurture").

'Skinner vs. Rogers' is one of the linchpins of undergrad psychology and sociology courses in the U.S.

Glad I asked.
Thank you.

[AZ.bbm]

--You're welcome, to be sure.

Sandy's original DIRECT (before he altered the question, itself, and you fell in behind him) asks if YOU believe in 'nurture over nature.' I had really wanted to know which side of the issue you come down on, but it's clear that you (wisely) don't intend to answer it.

 
-Stan

[Paul029]

--You're welcome, to be sure.

Ta, mate.  

Sandy's original DIRECT (before he altered the question, itself, and you fell in behind him) asks if YOU believe in 'nurture over nature.' I had really wanted to know which side of the issue you come down on, but it's clear that you don't intend to answer it (and I don't blame you.)

You've just confirmed my intuited reasons for refraining from involvement in this tangled web of a thread for so long.  

But, never mind, I'll plough on to the bitter end...  

...and the devil take the hindmost.

[AZ.bbm]

Re Reply #7309,

(...) but where exactly in the SS does he actually state that he doesn't want to be "gay?"

I got the feeling along about Page 16, where he says: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. It ain't goin a be that way...Jack, I don't want a be like them guys you see around sometimes."

Ennis is caught in his own loop, and he ain't even gonna consider  changing --  for love nor money.

[Paul029]

Re Reply #7309,
I got the feeling along about Page 16, where he says: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. It ain't goin a be that way...Jack, I don't want a be like them guys you see around sometimes."

I'll await the recipient's response to my query, if I may. 

[Desecra]

Re Reply #7309,
I got the feeling along about Page 16, where he says: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. It ain't goin a be that way...Jack, I don't want a be like them guys you see around sometimes."

Yes, I think that's pretty clear.  There's also Ennis not wanting to see or feel Jack.  It's not Jack that's the problem at that point, but what Ennis feels for Jack - something he can't accept feeling for another man.    There's Ennis's carefully reasoned argument about why he can't possibly be gay.   There's his anger when Jack admits to being gay (even though he knew all along).   Put it all together and it's clear that he doesn't want to be gay.

[Sandy]

No, it references the very extended classic debate between two acclaimed psychologists, Carl Rogers, the humanist, and B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist, centers around whether you were born with certain traits and proclivities ("nature"), or whether these were acquired, later, via your upbringing ("nurture").
The 'Skinner vs. Rogers' Debate is one of the linchpins of undergrad psychology and sociology courses in the U.S.

Skinner doesn't hold up very well. I can refer you to Noam Chomsky's review of Skinner's "Verbal Behavior," where he largely dismantles Skinner's paradigm. This debate now belongs more to the history of psychology than to models of psychology that psychologists actually use.

[fofol]

Two men who have sex with one another two or three times a year, making each 'fishing trip' last two to three weeks - without ever a thought to catch fish - are gay.  ALL else is smoke and mirrors - a fantasy of heterosexuality and/or just plain kidding themselves...