Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis) - Next chapter

[AZ.bbm]

As I see it, the problem is, who you're boinking or who you marry doesn't actually 'prove' anything. We need a true test that will positively ascertain to which sex either man finds primarily attractive.

Unfortunately these two fictional characters were imbued only with the traits the author saw fit to give them. But we ourselves invented the rest of their baggage, heaping upon them such things as societal pressure to marry, paranoia, intrinsic gayness, endogenic homophobia, identity denial, post-traumatic stress disorder,...  to which real characters could be exposed or subjected,  but these are traits and qualities we choose to believe about fictional characters which we cannot positively demonstrate.

When Ennis del Mar jumped out of that 18-wheeler in Signal, Wyoming in 1963, *unjaundiced* movie-goers didn't know Ennis from Adam, had no preconceptions about him whatsoever... Only after he fell in 'lust' with Jack Twist did we each allow ourselves the liberty to create whatever backstory our heart desired.

F.W.I.W.

[janjo]

Aren't at least some of the attributes you have raised there, Stan, suggested by the author?
I don't think that we as an audience / readers  just made them up.

[Paul029]

I really don't feel we have enough info about them.  Considering what
happened to them, I guess not.

Thank you, Lyle. 

[Paul029]

~~~ these two fictional characters were imbued only with the traits the author saw fit to give them. But we ourselves invented the rest of their baggage, heaping upon them such things as societal pressure to marry, paranoia, intrinsic gayness, endogenic homophobia, identity denial, post-traumatic stress disorder,...  to which real characters could be exposed or subjected,  but these are traits and qualities we choose to believe about fictional characters which we cannot positively demonstrate. ~~~

F.W.I.W.

More than 2¢ worth there, Stan. 

[AZ.bbm]

Aren't at least some of the attributes you have raised there, Stan, suggested by the author?
I don't think that we as an audience / readers  just made them up.

That's true, but  the members of BBM forums have what is called 'insider-' or 'academic' knowledge about the story and the film, the result of literally years of study, gleaned from a multiplicity of sources, including the story, the author herself, and endless discussion, even 'indoctrination,' -- some of it quite reliable and some less so -- but in most cases this 'expert knowledge,' culled ex post facto,  is based on 'extra-story' deduction.... Ordinary viewers were not privy to the SS or other information before seeing the film. -Some of them, in fact, e.g., novice commenters at YouTube.com, are still wrestling with the I swear dilemma.

When I went to see the movie, I heard it was about cowboys, so I comfortably surmised that they were not homosexuals, just two guys who discovered that Love transcends Nature. I arrived here only to discover that there are yet folks who are *astonished* that people can have same-sex relations and not be gay.

[Paul029]

That's true, but  the members of BBM forums have what is called 'insider-' or 'academic' knowledge about the story and the film, the result of literally years of study, gleaned from a multiplicity of sources, including the story, the author herself, and endless discussion, even 'indoctrination,' -- some of it quite reliable and some less so -- but in most cases this 'expert knowledge,' culled ex post facto,  is based on 'extra-story' deduction.... Ordinary viewers were not privy to the SS or other information before seeing the film. -Some of them, in fact, e.g., novice commenters at YouTube.com, are still wrestling with the I swear dilemma.

When I went to see the movie, I heard it was about cowboys, so I comfortably surmised that they were not homosexuals, just two guys who discovered that Love transcends Nature.

I arrived here only to discover that there are yet folks who are *astonished* that people can have same-sex relations and not be gay.

Don't stop there, Stan.

I'm intrigued.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I also have discovered that there are yet folks who are "astonsihed" that
people can have opposite-sex relations and not be straight.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Unless you factor in that pesky notion of societal, familial and religious thematics.

[AZ.bbm]

Don't stop there, Stan.
I'm intrigued.

Okay, Dr Paul, can you enlighten us regarding the  ratio of A) straight persons who might be enjoying 'same sex' relations, versus B) gay persons who are having 'oppo-sex' relations?  Since 'straights' dominate the general population (10:1, straight vs. gay?) I'm thinking that there would be a higher percentage of the former(A) than the latter(B)...? -That it would be more likely that Ennis & Jack would be straights-doing-gay, than gays-doing-straight.?



+  I noted too, that, in the Hippie Rescue Scene, the screenwriters depicted Ennis del Mar as  having a conservative affect (intolerance), rather than the 'affect' of a liberal with its chief hallmark, tolerance. I realize that, as the Hippie  scene was deleted from the movie, some feel it should be treated "like it never happened." But if BBM scholars are wont to make use of extra-story data from book jackets, Bettermost bean cans, or whatever, why not take the deleted scenes into consideration, as well?

[janjo]

I also have discovered that there are yet folks who are "astonsihed" that
people can have opposite-sex relations and not be straight.

Perhaps that should be "not say they are straight."

How many people are completely "straight" do you think?

[janjo]

Well...............it is my contention that truly straight people do not have sex with others of the same sex, are not attracted to them, and do not relish the idea at all. If all of the people here who have had sex with people who say they are straight are to be believed, and I do believe them, then those people are not straight.
They are in fact bisexual, at least to some degree.
Probably a lot of people are.

[AZ.bbm]

Well...............it is my contention that truly straight people do not have sex with others of the same sex, are not attracted to them, and do not relish the idea at all.

If all of the [gays] here who have had sex with [people who claimed to be straight] are to be believed...then [the latter] are not straight. They are in fact bisexual, at least to some degree. Probably a lot of people are.

So it's all a matter of 'classification'...?

Wouldn't it be up the girl to decide if a change to her sexual classification is warranted after she has voluntarily engaged in sex with another girl? Shouldn't there be a mandatory waiting period (as with purchasing a gun, here), before one is allowed to amend her self-identity?

[Paul029]

Okay, Dr Paul, can you enlighten us regarding the  ratio of A) straight persons who might be enjoying 'same sex' relations, versus B) gay persons who are having 'oppo-sex' relations?  Since 'straights' dominate the general population (10:1, straight vs. gay?) I'm thinking that there would be a higher percentage of the former(A) than the latter(B)...?

My legal advisor suggested that I refrain from answering all such requests for enlightenment.  

However, I would be tempted to respond should you provide data based on a global survey of every person on the planet.
It would be essential for such a survey to include a gender differentiation category for both 'heterosexual persons' and 'gay persons.'
The results may be muddled if heterosexual men were lumped together with heterosexual women, and lesbians with gays.

The survey should also not discriminate between, as you put it, "enjoying" same sex relations and "having" oppo-sex relations.
It's important that such a survey avoid even the appearance of bias.
Perhaps "enjoying" and "having" sexual relations should be separate issues for both 'same sex" and 'non-same sex' sexual relations.

I realise, of course, that such a survey, even if confidentiality was guaranteed, would be inherently unreliable, people being who they are...  
It is also understood that some cultures frown upon any references to sexuality (including sexual behaviour) at all, even under the aegis of confidentiality.

Over to you.    

-That it would be more likely that Ennis & Jack would be straights-doing-gay, than gays-doing-straight.?

This question, while appearing to be straightforward, is not without its problems.

Fundamentally, the question involves two fictional characters whose sexualities are unclear.*
I use the plural noun for the obvious reason that, as two individuals are involved, their respective sexual orientations should be recognised as such until otherwise determined.

Now, if you’re asking whether Ennis and Jack are more likely to be heterosexual men who “enjoy same sex relations,” or whether they’re homosexual men who “have oppo-sex relations,” I really can’t answer, because I don’t think things are as simple as that.

The issue could be looked at in a number of ways and, as all we have to go by is what’s in the story (and perhaps what’s in the film), could you could clarify which of the two it is that you’d like me to consider when answering.

For instance, the text source doesn’t tell us what occurred after Jack and Ennis parted, or between Jack and Lureen when they met, but it does tell us that they married, and later, that he visited Mexico for what he told Ennis he said he “needed.” The secondary source, on the other hand, shows us  that after Jack and Ennis parted he flirted with a male rodeo clown, had sex with Lureen on their first date and that he visited Mexico for sexual relief with a male prostitute.

We could accept the information in the secondary source as accurate simply because what we’re told in the primary source allows room for such an interpretation.
But it’s possible, for instance, for Jack to have gone to LF to help out his Daddy (as he said he thought of doing), and perhaps then go to Texas (if the draft didn’t get him), and presumably do some rodeoing to earn a livelihood.

So I’m loathe to provide a ‘global’ answer for not only those reasons but also because your reference to “doing-gay” and “doing-straight” suggests something akin to whimsical playfulness, as if sexual activity is undertaken with a particular gender less than seriously.

* I recently stated that I thought Jack was 'gay,' yet in my initial post/s I'd suggested that he was bisexual. Now, I'm not so sure which he is. He apparently has a well-developed sexual drive; perhaps that’s what’s giving me some difficulty. My thoughts about Ennis's sexuality haven't yet been been stated, although I've leant toward the idea that he's heterosexual (with the proviso that I think his relationship with Jack puts him into an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone’).

Lyle recently asked me whether I thought that the characters “could be gay in the story and not in the film, or vice versa.”
I answered him by saying that the question presupposed that their sexualities were the same, but he’s touched on something that could explain why I’m possibly so uncertain about the issue.

Perhaps the story and the film do, for me, convey differing messages about the respective sexualities of Jack and Ennis.

[AZ.bbm]

Presently rummaging through interviews of Heath and Jake, and some between various psychologists and psychiatrists...

<musings>
Interesting: More than a few psychologists, e.g., Fritz Klein, Amy Andre, et.al., reflect the stated objective of the actors: the goal was to portray two straight guys who fell in love with each other.  I'm trying to learn just why this approach (which I agree with) appealed to both HL and JG. Some have postulated that the actors took that tack, variously because they were "interested in preserving their acting careers to admit to Ennis and Jack's true nature,' or, because they themselves were heterosexually-oriented persons...

I would discount the former explanation; I don't believe HL and JG would have taken up the lead roles in BBM if they were truly worried about their careers (as indeed some other actors were!)...
As for the latter explanation, that they were compelled to portray J & E as 'straights' because they themselves were 'straight' (and therefore guilty of heterosexual bias...?), I have to discount this theory on the basis of Heath's and Jake's professionalism.



2.  As to whether Jack & Ennis actually fell in love with each other, who really knows?  -I like to BELIEVE that they did, that they were "in love" with each other,  but IMO (and I've said this for years), Ennis del Mar's behavior toward Jack Twist was inconsistent with that of a man in love. [in RL, anyway] 

But let me just say that I have difficulty trying to discern 'bromance  ' between two intimate male friends -- which can be mighty intense at times, sans  the sex -- from a 'categorical' love relationship.  I'm not sure there's really a qualitative difference between a 'bromance' and two guys being 'in love' (again, sans  the sex).



3. It's a given that Heath's intention in BBM was acting out a straight man succumbing to a gay love affair as best he could.  I think that since the actor's interpretation of the character in a film is where "the rubber meets the road," i.e., in the general audience's collective face, as it were, therefore, for the average viewer, I think his portrayal should, ipso facto, be the definitive view of the character's intrinsic self.

</musings>

-Az

[AZ.bbm]

My legal advisor suggested that I refrain from answering all such requests for enlightenment.  

-without charging a fee, you mean? 

However, I would be tempted to respond should you provide data based on a global survey of every person on the planet.
It would be essential for such a survey to include a gender differentiation category for both 'heterosexual persons' and 'gay persons.'
The results may be muddled if heterosexual men were lumped together with heterosexual women, and lesbians with gays.

I would be satisfied with a valid statistical sample... That population sample might take a little time (and money).

I'm not certain that a male/female differentiation would be necessary, I was interested only in 'quantitative' results.

The survey should also not discriminate between, as you put it, "enjoying" same sex relations and "having" oppo-sex relations...Perhaps "enjoying" and "having" sexual relations should be separate issues for both 'same sex" and 'non-same sex' sexual relations.

I was just going along with the popular local bias - that same-sex activity is 'enjoyable' whereas oppo-sex activity is merely tolerable...  

I realise, of course, that such a survey, even if confidentiality was guaranteed, would be inherently unreliable, people being who they are...  
It is also understood that some cultures frown upon any references to sexuality (including sexual behaviour) at all, even under the aegis of confidentiality.
Over to you.    

I think Shere Hite did such a survey in her Hite Report on Male Sexuality (-way old study) pitting 'anonymous' participants' responses against 'non-anonymous' participants' responses - quite a lot of discrepency between them, in many cases, as I recall...

-That it would be more likely that Ennis & Jack would be straights-doing-gay, than gays-doing-straight.?

This question, while appearing to be straightforward, is not without its problems....Now, if you're asking whether Ennis and Jack are more likely to be heterosexual men who “enjoy same sex relations,” or whether they’re homosexual men who “have oppo-sex relations,” I really can’t answer, because I don’t think things are as simple as that.
(...)
So I’m loathe to provide a ‘global’ answer for not only those reasons but also because your reference to “doing-gay” and “doing-straight” suggests something akin to whimsical playfulness, as if sexual activity is undertaken with a particular gender less than seriously.

I use the terms, "doing gay" & "being gay" as in Weinberg, to differentiate between people who are only extrinsically gay, participating in recreational or meaningful sex while not committed to the partner, versus those who are intrinsically gay, romantically and sexually attracted to members (-plural!) of the same sex. (I'm excluding sexual mono-manias, etc., here.)

"Doing gay" is significant because it can give the appearance of love when it could in fact be only an addiction (demonstrated) and it's often confused with "being gay" (also demonstrated).

 Ref. Weinberg, T.S. - On "doing" and "being" gay: sexual behavior and homosexual male self-identity.