Posted on 01/15/2006 11:00:14 AM PST by TFFKAMM
It's true, the movie "Brokeback Mountain" does provoke what one researcher calls "a very strong ick factor" in some straight men.
What is it in this story of two cowboy pals in 1960s Wyoming who find themselves in lifelong love -- yet go on to marry women -- that elicits this response from heterosexual males?
The answers are as complex as the plot.
A psychologist who coined the word "homophobic" said the revulsion is precisely that. A scientist who discovered genetic links to sexuality said he simply does not understand the response. The author of "The Sexual Brain" said there is nothing on a neurobiological basis to explain the aversion.
To film fan Eddie Hargreaves of Stockton, it's more like the "ick" of romantic drama. "I'm not going to speak for everybody," he said, "but I don't know a lot of straight guys who said, 'Oh, man, I can't wait to see "Bridges of Madison County," 1995's famous tearjerker.
"Brokeback Mountain," directed by Oscar winner Ang Lee and starring box-office hunks Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is sparking both critical praise and water-cooler chatter. It's been nominated for seven Golden Globe awards.
But when movie critic Dave White, who is gay, wrote a humorous piece titled "The Straight Dude's Guide to 'Brokeback,' " "I got hundreds of messages, most of whom hated me for just existing," he said...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
IS IT OKAY WITH YOU A$$HOLES IN PSYCHOLOGY IF I DON'T LIKE SOMETHING? Why is this looked at like it's a disease?
I've found that a lot of people I know have an "ick" factor at the thought of people having sex with children. Why are these people pedophiliaphobic?
I've found that a lot of people I know have an "ick" factor with canabalism. Why are these people canabalismphobic?
Is it okay with you if I have opinions? Or is it only okay if those opinions agree with yours?
Read In a Narrow Grave if you want a hint as to what McMurtry believes. The guy has a genuine love of the west and western mythology dating back to his book, Horseman, Pass by (the movie was called Hud) and Last Picture Show.
was more interested in the cast than setting a precedent.
>> "would the "scientist" spend time & money to go see a film about some guy boinking a goat?" <<
You know, that would be more interesting to see, and less ick, than two guys getting it on.
But I think I will pass on both concepts.
No they're rump wranglers.
not so.
as a woman, I have a heavy "ick-reaction"
What? No Catherine Zeta Jones? She seems pretty popular around here.
You are hung up on semantics. It is still a story about two horny guys out in the boondocks who react to a close encounter of the homo kind. That is not love. That is just the only kind of sex available to them at the time. It happens in situations where men (or women) have no access to the opposite sex. Examples are prisoners, remote job sites, etc. This movie is simply pushing the gay agenda by using the "love card" to make the characters seem noble. The entertainment industry thinks it is wonderful and are falling all over themselves to hype it. I have no doubt it will be an Academy Award winner. Just remember who votes on those awards. It is not the public who generally rejects the theme of this piece of junk. Cowboys or sheperds argument is meaningless.
It would be more accurate to understand that they have "this problem".
Whatever argument can be made for homosexuality must start with the admission that it is, in fact, abnormal behavior.
Here is information of the pending California hate crimes law:
California's Hate Crimes Expansion: Dangerous to Christians?
Jody Brown
Agape Press
The "thought police" may soon be roaming the corridors of businesses and schools in California, in search of people who have been accused of uttering "hate speech" toward homosexuals. Several Christian activists in the Golden State are concerned that that indeed could be the scenario if Senate Bill 1234 becomes law.
The intent of SB 1234 is to redefine what constitutes a "hate crime" in California. In general, hate crimes laws create different classes of victims, seeking greater punishments for crimes committed against one class of people -- such as homosexuals -- over other victims. Under this legislation, individuals could claim that someone expressing their deeply held beliefs, whether political or religious, presents an "intimidating" threat that is punishable.
A section of the proposed law reads as follows:
Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought [under this law] except upon a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
Penalties for violating SB 1234 include criminal prosecution and fines of $25,000.
Sponsored by lesbian State Senator Sheila Kuehl, SB 1234 has already been passed by the Senate and could be voted on by the Assembly as soon as today (Wednesday). Opponents of the bill are not optimistic about the Assembly vote and expect the measure to move along to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for his signature before the end of the month.
Punishing Perceived Threats
Those critics maintain that crimes against persons should be punishable, but that unlawful conduct -- not attitudes -- should be punished. The Campaign for California Families says Keuhl's legislation, in redefining what constitutes hate crimes, "borders on stifling free speech and infringing upon peaceful, conscientious conduct."
CCF continues, describing the bill as "dangerous to our society" and vulnerable to being applied subjectively and inequitably. "It is wrong to award proponents of certain beliefs unprecedented power to criminalize their opponents' free speech and peaceful conduct," CCF states. "This bill is overly-broad and can injure innocent persons who are expressing political speech, not committing assault or violence of any kind."
Hate crimes law, CCF says, are the first step toward "thought police" because they punish people's points of views instead of focusing on people's conduct.
California pro-family activist James Hartline calls SB 1234 a "frightening rewrite" of current civil rights laws that is masquerading as a protection measure. Christians, he says, should be particularly concerned.
"This bill would censor all Californians from their constitutional right to free speech when articulating what the Bible states regarding the sinful nature of homosexuality," he says, citing several scenarios. He contends the bill would prevent pastors from speaking out against homosexuality from the pulpit and would allow law enforcement to enter a church and arrest a pastor for doing so.
"[And] any person who says they are 'fearful' because someone has said homosexuality is wrong could have the speaker arrested and jailed,"
One might dismiss them as paranoid about over use of the law if we didn't see the exact same scenario in Europe and Canada now resulting in prosecutions of individuals who have done nothing except express their opinions that homosexuality is wrong.
I won't go see Hollywood's "epic love story" about a porn star and a donkey either. Even if the Liberal kooks do nominate it for a bunch of "Golden Globes" and "Oscars."
Becoming "gay" is THE ultimate failure as a Man. Thats how I think of it anyway. All men wnat a good woman and homos just can't make that happen.
Orwellian doublethink.
Homosexuality is "scientific" in exactly the same way that the Soviet Union was governed via "scientific socialism." Science is a tool the left perverts so it can declare any departure from the party line not as a difference of opinion but as fundamentally illegitimate. Thoughtcrime.
Notice how religious beliefs were considered a mental illness in the USSR. It took the atheistic left to bring back the idea of heresy.
Has the author ever seen two guys kissing? I have. It elicits that reaction because it is objectively icky. It's even worse when they have moustaches. Yuck.
An Asian, Ang Lee, directed this film. One of his previous film's, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", was quite popular a few years ago. No Asians forgotten there. Have you been on the Stanford or MIT campuses lately?
The film is set in the 1960's which is something I didn't know until recently. Societal opposition to homosexuality would be even more pronounced in that context.
We both know such marriages have happened and continue to happen and will continue to happen. Why oppose their open and exclusive homosexuality, while attacking their sham with these wives? Your position boils down to one calling for either compulsory reeducation or eradication of homosexuals. That's completely untenable.
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.