Posted on 02/27/2006 2:46:01 PM PST by prman
Considering the current hoo-hah over the movie "Brokeback Mountain" and whether it will win any Academy Awards brings into focus what the appeal of this movie might be for straights – heterosexual persons, that is.
While I am aware that there is a larger context for this movie in the social arena – a serious dramatic treatment of homosexual love – and that gay advocacy groups consider this another victory in their agenda to break barriers and normalize homosexuality, my personal reaction is to question why I would want to see a movie on this theme.
Because of the strength of the gay lobby and the widespread, stifling political correctness that inhibits frank public discussion about homosexual lifestyles, people who happen to disagree with the prospect of gay marriage, civil unions, employer- or taxpayer-sponsored health insurance for gay partners, or even gay pride marches generally do not receive any attention in the media. As a result, they keep their thoughts to themselves.
Now that Hollywood movies and television shows are officially "gay-friendly," and certain corporations bruit about how they are targeting the gay market in their advertising, and even metropolitan newspapers carry obligatory op-ed columns by gay and lesbian writers, contrary views are relegated to the mouths of fundamentalist Bible-thumpers who are routinely dismissed by the mainstream media.
Any criticism of gayness, reasonable or not, is judged as homophobic, a word that is as ridiculously meaningless (fear of man?) as it is knee-jerk. Many people, usually guilt-ridden liberals, fear being called this, since they equate it with the same force as being called a racist.
My speculation is that straights, even in their silence on the issue, still regard homosexuality as wrong, deviant and against nature. And all religions not revisionist consider it sinful. Further, they believe that widespread acceptance of homosexual behavior is a bad thing.
I am not saying homosexuals qua homosexuals are bad, only the practice of having sex with another of the same sex. Straights most likely also believe that gay practices should be private, not public, matters. Which is why the idea of gay days at Disney World, bathhouses and flamboyant gay pride marches in San Francisco is so repellent.
Several gay columnists have commended "Brokeback Mountain" because it wrestles with the issues that confront two men who love each other, yet find themselves overwhelmed by a straight society that generally disapproves. The writers identify with the emotional turmoil of the characters because, we must assume, they have gone through this themselves.
But that gets to the heart of the question. As a hetero, how can I identify with this situation? More importantly, why would I want to? I care no more about the love life of homosexuals than I do about the mating habits of aardvarks or why female praying mantises bite the heads off their male suitors. While these may be interesting as points of study, they have no relevance to my life.
As a straight guy, I want to be able to identify with characters who have a normal libido and show passion toward the opposite, not the same, sex. Becoming emotionally wound up with two male lovers just isn't in the cards, and I venture to say that most straight people feel the same way. And this attitude transcends politics, rights or social controversies. It's hard-wired into our beings.
In college, when I was younger, thinner and boyish-looking, gays from the music school – organists, violinists, pianists – were always trying to convert me to accept or even join their lifestyles. They assumed that a young "chicken" like myself was in some sexual identity confusion that could be solidified by more exposure to the homo life.
In a way, they were right, because when I went to a gay party and saw all these guys dancing together and fondling one another, I had to avert my gaze, feeling a wave of disgust that still reverberates today.
Today, the media serve up caricatures of gays, from comic sitcom characters to snooty, style-conscious, queer-eye types, in an attempt to make them more acceptable to straights. This may work on a surface level, but it is misleading.
In my experience, gays don't think like straights do. They're in a totally different world in their desires, their thinking, their reactions and their very being. No matter what laws are passed or what additional "rights" are claimed, the gay life is fundamentally at odds with straight experience. I do not feel comfortable in their world.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.
All they did was make a gay version of "Same Time, Next Year."
I'm still waiting to hear how homosexuality is different from other abnormal sexual behaviors. If pedophiles can be cured, why is homosexuality forever?
They say that pedophilia cannot be cured, however.
Shoulda called it "Bareback Mountain."
Really? Who does? Seems to me that a man was recently given 60 days in jail for raping a little girl because the judge wanted him to receive counseling.
The irony of all this is (or is it really irony?) is that just as modern medecine and psychiatry were getting to a point (1950s) where they might actually be able to study and understand (and cure) homosexuality, political correctness raised its head and made ANY attempt to label homosexuality a "disease" or "disorder" unthinkable.
I have never met a homosexual who was happy. And living in the Bay Area, I've met a lot of them.
Amazing how quickly Hollywood went from attempting to portray adultery as something noble in the movie that you mentioned to attempting to portray homosexual buggery as something other that disgusting.
They've failed at both, of course, but thanks for pointing out their earlier attempts at normalizing what once was (and should be again) disdained by society.
Now, what about the current level of extreme paranoid heterophobia ?
I'm still correct.
I would agree with him if I didn't find the L Word on Showtime so completely captivating.
They're just waiting for the American Psychiatric Association to say "Well, that's OK, too!"
You're absolutely correct in how many homosexual men are angry, mentally tortured, and generally unhappy. I've worked with about a half-dozen homosexual male coworkers and they were generally very screwy-in-the-head.
The lesbian women tended to be better adjusted and were far more pleasant. They didn't have that lingering bitterness that lies just below the surface of gay men's persona.
~ Blue Jays ~
They were not "Cowboys". They were sheepherders.
Sheepherders never work with two watching a heard.
They work alone. Nobody can afford more than one sheepherder per heard. That is why they have sheep dogs.
The whole premise of the movie is bunk.
Except the bit about homosexuals qua homosexuals. I think of it as deviant sexual behavior; not as a genetic trait.
"All they did was make a gay version of "Same Time, Next Year.""
It seems the gays ones do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.