Tell me if I'm being too sensitive...

[Puglover]

This morning I read a review of Brokeback Mountain....here's the 1st paragraph.


"Does being grossed out by gay men having sex make me a homophobe? Does it make me a bad person? Intellectually I have no problem with it. Homosexuality doesn’t offend me or anything. If you’re into that, fine by me. Pick out wallpaper, get married, adopt kids. I’m all for it guys. The world sucks and if you can find something that makes you happy, whatever it is, you should do it! But that doesn’t change the fact that watching two guys have sex on screen makes me feel a little grossed out. It’s like eating something that you don’t like the taste of. Maybe on an intellectual level you know it’s good for you, or you know it’s something you should like, but there’s no getting past the taste. Spinach is gross, I can force myself to eat it, even tell myself I need it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to enjoy it. Like most straight men, I don’t particularly enjoy looking at other naked, sexually aroused males. Whether he’s gay or straight, there’s nothing fun about watching a guy drop his drawers. It’s only worse when there’s two of them. It’s not a discrimination thing, it’s just a natural, straight guy thing.

On edit...here's the link if you wish to read it in it's entirety

http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=1237

Here's what I wrote the guy....

We hardly know each other but your review of "Brokeback Mountain" makes me feel like I can be candid with you.

"Does being grossed out by gay men having sex make me a homophobe?" Answer: no. But by making the 1st (and very long paragraph) of a movie review all about explaining your fragility as a straight guy makes you somewhat pathetic. The spinach allegory is cute, real cute.

Thank god as a gay man, my psyche isn't so brittle that everytime I see straight folks kissing, or a womans body I need to tell the world that it makes me feel icky. Try, just try to put yourself outside of your comfortable little bubble and try to imagine what it might feel like (being gay) to read dreck like the 1st paragraph of your review.

This is one movie out of countless thousands that addresses this issue and you have to inform us all that one of it's flaws is that it's going to gross out straight men.

Lord Josh, get a clue.

What do you all think?

[Heidi]

1. I don't think you're being too sensitive.

:pals: Josh might not be a homophobe (in that he might not be actually afraid of homosexuals), but I do think he's a bigot trying to rationalize his irrational reaction to sex acts that have nothing to do with him. :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Your fellow DUers from Kansas

are planning on going en masse to see this movie in Topeka - Fred Phelps country.

[cfield]

13. I'm in Manhattan

and I'd wager a bet that our theater won't even get it. I don't know anything about the movie seeing as I just heard the name for the first time this morning, but I want to see it.

Wish I had time for a trip to Topeka!

[Puglover]

16. LOL...I read your subthread title and thought...

MANHATTAN! Of COURSE you'll get it in MANHATTAN..

Lord....

:eyes:

[cfield]

24. ...

That happens all the time. Even when I specify KANSAS, people usually don't realize it. So, don't feel bad!

[Misunderestimator]

3. It’s not a discrimination thing, it’s just a natural, straight guy thing

Wow! That is the biggest load of crap rationale I've ever heard in my life to excuse one's bigotry. It's just natural for a straight guy to be a bigot?

That was a REVIEW? Where? In a Pat Robertson publication?

[eyesroll]

7. I think it's somewhat natural to be uncomfortable with watching it

...as it's certainly out of the comfort zone of many heterosexual males. I was uncomfortable watching "Herald and Maude" the first time, and watching someone getting led by a chain connected to his Prince Albert, for similar reasons. It was unfamiliar, and, thus, a little weird.

That said, it probably doesn't belong as the lead in a review, especially considering I can't imagine it's all that graphic. (I think it's natural for some people, independent of gender and sexual orientation, to be grossed out by graphic sex on the big screen, and were I writing a review, I'd probably include a "there is way less left to the imagination that you'd expect" disclaimer somewhere. Hell, I know some people who were uncomfortable watching penguin courtship in "The March of the Penguins.") I think there is a way to discuss discomfort in a review, more tactfully.

[Misunderestimator]

8. Well sure some people can be uncomfortable...

But to go on and on about it that way, and to claim that it's not discrimination along with everything else he wrote... that's bullshit. It's most definitely bigoted.

[lukasahero]

9. Sure, and if this guy was "grossed out by graphic sex" in general

he could have said so. He also could have said how uncomfortable he is when he sees two women having sex on the big screen but he didn't.

His "I'm all for gay rights but..." line is, just as others have noted, nothing more than the old "I'm not a racist but..." bs.

[Misunderestimator]

10. Hi there!

Good to see you around lately... :hi:

[lukasahero]

14. Hi back at 'cha!

:hi:

Thanks for the greeting. :)

[redqueen]

21. That gets to me as well...

Chances are the guy loves watching gay women. Why don't men think introspectively about this little disconnect and examine it?

I can't help but think of people who would be 'grossed out' by a black man kissing a white woman. "Oh, but I'm not a racist, I'm just not into that."

Whatever.

[roguevalley]

63. I suppose two women together is okay for this guy. How is it that

he can be offended by two guys. personally, I find that wowser in all the good ways. This guy's little self image needs a work over.

[kmla]

4. He lied. He is a homophobe.

Some people don't think they are racist either. So they preface their joke with, "I'm not a racist, but did you hear the one about the black guy who..." or "What do you call a Chinese man that..."

He just did the same thing. Just took more words to say it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. You got it...My grandmother isn't "prejudiced" in the least...except

she refuses to go downtown with me, and the one time I made her go...she locked her door and acted like someone was going to come up and rape/mug/carjack us at any second. :hi:

[Bridget Burke]

5. Not at all. And the answer to his first question is "Yes"

He should have just reviewed the movie. At the end, he could have confessed his shortcomings if he felt that necessary. But that first paragraph points out he's a lousy reviewer & a frightened man.

I could understand the guy declining a chance to view gay porn--but I've heard that Brokeback Mountain is hardly a F*ckfest.

As you pointed out, gays are able to enjoy (good) "het" movies.

[bertha katzenengel]

6. Dear Puglover:

"by making the 1st (and very long paragraph) of a movie review all about explaining your fragility as a straight guy makes you somewhat pathetic."

GOD DAMNED RIGHT! WAY TO GO! :yourock:

PERFECT response. I couldn't have said it better myself. :woohoo:

[dolo amber]

11. Well, conversely...

I know plenty of gay guys who are repulsed by the thought of, nevermind looking at, hetero sex and wouldn't flinch at letting someone know. I don't think you're being too sensitive nor he too insensitive...I think it's just a matter of what people are comfortable watching. :shrug:

[crispini]

30. You know, dolo, you're right about that.

My brother is gay, and is often incredibly blunt about his opinions, and/or enjoys being offensive/funny, and one of his opinions which he expresses can be, from time to time, "oooo, hetero-sex, how gross."

[Hugin]

12. What I don't get...

Is why this guy felt the need to write a review at all?

There's plenty of other movies around.

[Puglover]

15. Thanks for all the kind and interesting responses all.

This is making for good conversation at work this morning. If the guy writes back I'll post to this thread. I'm interested in what he may have to say.

[SteppingRazor]

17. I might as well stick my neck out -- yes, perhaps you are too sensitive...

I mean, I appreciate the fact that the reviewer was decent enough to come out and admit his problems and/or his lack of comfort with the material, instead of giving in to bias and writing a slanted review because he felt uncomfortable.

Some people might question why he wrote the review in the first place, if he's uncomfortable. The obvious answer is that he's a movie critic, this movie has caused a lot of controversy, and if he just ignored it becuase he wasn't comfortable, he wouldn't be doing his job.

I think, contrary to this being evidence of homophobia, it's this reviewers attempt to put an honest face on his feelings amd deal with them up front, instead of letting them manipulate his coverage. I don't think this is homophobic, I think this is fairly courageous.

You can't help how an image makes you feel. What you can decide is how you handle those feelings.

[Misunderestimator]

18. "If you’re into that, fine by me."

If someone says something like that to me about my homosexuality... I find that insulting. It's the entire tone of his review, not just the fact that he is "grossed out" by seeing two men fuck.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. Except he's lying to himself...Intellectually, he's not "really" okay with

it. I'm sure he's not cringing in the theater watching a man and woman get it on. His responsibility as a reviewer was to review the movie in my opinion, and he plastered that review with his own homophobia...yes homophobia. If he was honest with himself, on an "intellectual" level, he would have handed the duties to someone else, who could give us an unbiased review. :hi:

[redqueen]

22. Very well put.

:hi:

[SteppingRazor]

27. Then where does he stand? Obviously, he's not on the homophobic side...

Much of the rest of the review reads as a diatribe against homophobes. Witness the final paragraph:

"The film has its flaws, but maybe it deserves attention simply for approaching such a potentially explosive topic with determined openness. Ang Lee isn’t trying to avoid controversy, or pander to a heterosexual (possibly violently homophobic) audience by burying his characters sexuality under layers of innuendo. He’s stayed true to his material, and should be commended for it. Still, it’s a tough time in the United States to release a gay cowboy movie. The country is caught up in a crazed religious fervor and it’s never been more fashionable to hate and discriminate. In my home state of Texas, we just outlawed gay marriage… for the second time. Texans hate gay people so much they’ve made it double super-illegal for them to fall in love. It’s into this environment of sexual preference upheaval that Ang Lee’s honest, thoughtful, quiet exploration of boots and spurs homosexuality is being dropped. Fear the unpredictability of audience response."

Now, does that read as someone who hates gay people? Does that read as someone who is against gay rights? It sounds like, quite the opposite, the reviewer is angry at Texans for having passed anti-gay marriage laws.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. Like I said, he's lying to himself. He IS afraid of homosexuality and

its projection on the big screen. He can pay as much lipservice as he would like. My grandmother isn't racist to the point that she would like to see segregation...but she doesn't want to live next door to a black person and have to "look at them" all the time.

I'm afraid of spiders...therefore I would not have enjoyed watching "Arachnaphobia" on the screen. I didn't say he would go out and actively campaign against homosexuals, I said he was homophobic to a certain degree and not being honest with himself.

and, on edit: His job was to tell us the merits of the movie or why he didn't like it. :shrug: Not to put a one paragraph stamp on his "issues" into it.

[SteppingRazor]

33. In response to this and #32 below...

I think it's difficult to compare homophobia to, to continue the analogy Mrs. Grumpy made, arachnophobia. Whether we like it or not, there are cultural mores against homosexuality that many of us are only just now getting over in this society. No such cultural mores exist regarding other common phobias such as spiders, heights, dentists, enclosed spaces, etc.

To me, if a straight person expresses these feelings about homosexuality, but at the same time moves past those feelings to demand equal rights for gays, its rather cruel to castigate them for being homophobes. Given the anti-gay sentiment that is instilled in most Americans from a very young age, a certain degree of homophobia has to be expected in a large segment of the population -- at least, for the time being. And certainly, I think we are slowly moving in a direction where that will one day no longer be the case. Despite the protestations of the religious right, conservatives have been losing the culture war for a century or more now. We are slowly moving toward a more-tolerant society.

However, at the present time, given what most Americans are brought up with, I think you can't help but expect some degree of homophobia in a lot of us. If people who have been taught all their lives that homosexuality is wrong can put those feelings aside -- despite the fact that they can't help but feel them -- I don't think that makes them our enemies. That makes them a people who are in flux -- who could raise their own children in a far more open way, if they are accepted. And given that, I think it's a mistake to castigate them and push them away.

Also, though, I think one could legitimately argue that the reviewers individual feelings regarding homosexuality may not have a place in the review -- unless those feelings affected the review itself. And given the opening paragraph and the subsequent review, I think it's safe to say those feelings didn't affect a review that was mostly positive. So, I think you can certainly argue that the opening paragraph is unnecessary. What I don't think is wise is to immediately bash anyone who says they are for gay rights, for gay marriage, but who also says he/she is uncomfortable watching gay sex.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. My argument was quite legitimate. Thank you. He's lying to myself.

He is fearful, and as the other poster said. Fear does not equal hatred. Sorry. We're in disagreement. I bashed him for his review basically. The analogies worked quite well...just not in support of your argument.

[SteppingRazor]

37. Well, we can't be expected to agree, Mrs. Grumpy...

You're one of those "cat people." :)

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. But I've got room for dogs too...

;) Here is Jessie a few minutes ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4447072

[SteppingRazor]

40. Just contributed to that thread...

:hi:

[lukasahero]

32. But phobia doesn't mean "hate" - it means "fear". In fact

it means "A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion."

[Redstone]

53. Bravo, SR. Way to put in in context. I hope everyone reads your post.

People should slow down and read things before they react.

And I don't think there's a goddamned thing in the opening paragraph that sould upset anyone, unless they're easily upset. Thy guy's talking about how he feels, for Christ's sake. If there was a movie about, say, cancer, and he was squeamish about watching it because his wife had died of cancer, would everyone say he discriminated against sick people?

Great post.

Redstone

[Misunderestimator]

29. Perfectly stated.

Thanks!

[Puglover]

26. Thanks for that Stepping!

I love people who "stick their necks out" on DU!

:toast:

[redqueen]

19. No, you're not being too sensitive.

I think you went easy on the guy.

What an ass.

[Pithlet]

25. You're not being too sensitive.

His review did have a bit of the "I'm not a homophobe, BUT...." about it. It was rather pathetic.

[Debbi801]

28. You're not being over sensitive at all...

And I think it is pathetic and insulting that he felt the need to start a review that way. I think your letter to him was very good.

And contrary to this quote: "It’s not a discrimination thing, it’s just a natural, straight guy thing." Both my husband and myself are anxious to see this movie, sex scenes and all. :-) I think this guy has issues, whether he wants to own up to them or not.

[VelmaD]

34. I call bullshit...

if straight guys really "don’t particularly enjoy looking at other naked, sexually aroused males" then why are there so many "money" shots of cocks going off in porn aimed at the straight male market?

[Misunderestimator]

36. Oooh.... now THAT is a very good point!

:thumbsup:

[Puglover]

38. My best gal friend sez the same thing!

LOL...I always tell her it's because the women want to see that...(kidding of course) Her comment is always pretty much the same..."Oh bullshit Jeffrey, you guys are all so damn proud of that, that you have pull it out and look at it"

:rofl:

[victim]

41. Are you a guy?

Because I doubt very many guys enjoy looking at other naked sexually aroused males in that context. Take away the girl(s) with him in any of those scenes and track how many straight guys still wanna look at it (ZERO?)

Its more about imagining yourself in the scene/moment IMO

Secondly, straight women do girl-on-girl scenes all the time. Watching two chicks in sensual positions and situations isn't all that tied up with lesbianism.

Finally, if some movie critic wants to express his opinion, which isn't even overtly homophobic, AND its pretty clear he doesn't endorse discriminating against gays in any material way, what the hell are you bitching about?

You get to fuck whoever you want so, excepting hate speech, why can't he say whatever the fuck he wants?

[Puglover]

43. Welcome to DU Victim....

We're having a very interesting discussion in this thread. Why so hostile?

He CAN say whatever he wants. That's not the point of the thread now is it? I was asking if I was being overly sensitive by percieving the critic as being somewhat bigoted. Did you read the entire thread? I suggest you do so as there were many thoughtful posters.

[victim]

51. "I was asking if I was being overly sensitive by percieving the critic as

bigoted?"

I did read most of this thread and all I saw was alot of straight-male bashing

At any rate, my answer to your question is obviously "yes"...

[Misunderestimator]

49. Are you a victim?

[Left Is Write]

46. I was wondering something along those lines myself.

[JackDragna]

67. It's about replacement.

That is, when a man does something in straight pornography, the male watching identifies himself as the person onscreen getting it on. With gay porn, straight men don't have the same level of "this could be me" when watching the movie.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. it doesnt make him a homophobe per se

just frat boyish

:puke:

[Shell Beau]

44. It is hard to say.

But if you were offended, then you were offended! Obviously he is uncomfortable with two males together that way. I know a lot of men who would be. Doesn't mean they are homophobic necessarily. Maybe he isn't secure enough with his own manhood, who knows? But again, if you were offended, then you have the right to be and the right to let him know how it made you feel. :)

[BlueIris]

45. Definitely NOT too sensitive.

"It’s not a discrimination thing, it’s just a natural, straight guy thing."

'Kay. I know lots of straight people who naturally wouldn't be "grossed out" by the site of homoeroticism or gay sex. "(N)atural straight guy thing." What an asshole.

Also--it's nearly 2006. He's never watched any piece of art or entertainment with gay sex in it before? How limited. And immature.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

50. That was extremely bigoted what you just said...

so it's no wonder that you don't see the bigotry in the review. :eyes:

[Puglover]

52. So what your saying is that your simply

bigoted and judgemental...


"but those are some fruity straight men you're talking about. Nice...very nice.

"Most of us do find gay sex gross"

Ya know pal, NEWFLASH!!! I prolly don't think what you and your girlfriends do all that appetizing...however I have the good sense and manners to keep my piehole shut about what I think.
The fact that you feel the need to tell everyone about how "gross" you think it is it is telling in itself.

"many things about gays and their mannerisms offend our hetero sensibilities"

:rofl:

I'm not sure if you're simply indescribably arrogant or just very very young.

edit spelling

[davidinalameda]

47. if he just reviewed the movie, without the "disclaimer"

I'd be curious to what he would have said

movie reviewing is very subjective, just like any art review is

but no, you're not being too sensative

if people don't speak up, then people like this guy will continue to think it's okay to think like he does

[Redstone]

54. Fuck yes, you're being WAY too sensitive.

It's his DUTY as a reviewer to tell his readers about anything that might affect his objectivity about the movie he's reviewing.

That's one thing.

The other thing is this: Heterosexual men do NOT have to conform to your every requirement to not be a homophobe.

I happen to feel the same as he does:

1) A guy wants to sleep with other guys, rather than women? Fine. What the fuck do I care; it's not my business to tell anyone else how to live their life.

2) One of my sons ever tells me he's gay? Fine. He'll still be my son. Being gay won't change that.

3) He wants to get married to a guy (if he lives in a place where he can), or have a civil union, if that's the best they can do? Fine. I'll go to the ceremony, have a good time, and wish them all the happiness, same as I would if he were to marry a woman.

4) They come to visit, and want to sleep in the same bed in my house? Fine. Again, same as if he were married to a woman.

I am ONLY going to judge another man on whether I think he's a decent individual or not, NOT on his sexual preference. Everybody can do whatever they want to, and I am a great believer in equal rights for EVERYONE.

However, I don't like the idea of watching two guy going at each other, just like that movie reviewer. Are you going to tell me that I HAVE to like it, or I'm homophobic in your opinion, like you did to the reviewer?

If that's the case, then, as I said above, fine. Call me whatever you want to call me.

But that doesn't make it the truth.

Redstone

[Puglover]

55. What a GREAT post Redstone....

thanks for your thoughts...

However answer me this...if I wrote a review of oh geez I dunno...."Last Tango in Paris" and spent the 1st part of it explaining to you, my audience how gross I found the hetero sex scenes as a gay man, and made a cute little analogy about I'm supposed to like sushi but just can't and blah blah blah blah blah....and then finally got to the actual review.....

Would that be cool in your book? Or should I say relevant?

[Redstone]

57. You bet. Like I said, it would be your duty as a reviewer to make

a "disclaimer" about anything that might color your opinion.

I get the sense that your main problem is with the sushi remark; I think you feel it trivializes the subject, and yes, I think you're right to be mildly annoyed at that one thing. But it doesn't make the guy a homophobe, in my opinion.

And hey, I'm heterosexual, and I'd put a similar disclaimer in the beginnning of any review I wrote about Last Tango in Paris.

I'd probably say something about throwing out all the butter in my refrigerator and switching to margarine as well. Yech. Being heterosexual doesn't mean wanting to see just any old thing, just because it's a man and a woman.

Redstone

[Puglover]

58. you sound like such a mensch...

Id love to have a beer with you....

again though....I didn't call the guy a homophobe....!!!

My point was....why say anything PERIOD. God, please don't think I'm trying to say that hetro men should ENJOY watching gay sex depicted...my point is...should'nt we all be mature enough spiritually to not let two human beings loving each other gross us out and if it does....have the damn good taste to keep it to yourself?

[Redstone]

61. And my point is that he DID have to say something.

Again, just as you would have to say something if it DID bother you to watch heterosexuals going at it. As I would have to if I were writing a review of, say, "Full Metal Jacket."

Yes, it would be absolutely woderful if we were all "mature enough spritually" to not have ANYTHING bother us. But we're not. We're human, and individuals, and none of us can satisfy everyone else's expectations or standards or desires. Just the way of the world, that is.

I'll tell you the truth, I didn't enjoy reading the story that movie was based on (I don't go to the movies, but I read lots of books), which may mean that I'm not all that "spiritually mature" myself, but what the hell. I do the best I can, and that's all anyone's going to get from me.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have that beer with you; I'll even buy.

Redstone

[Puglover]

56. Oh and P.S.

read my letter again...I specifically did NOT call him a homophobe. I called him pathetic...

:evilgrin:

[Redstone]

59. Ah, come on. We're having a good discussion here. Let's not ruin

it with hair-splitting, OK? You know and I know and everyone here knows that's what you were talking about. Read my reply to your reply. I bet you'll like it.

Redstone

[Puglover]

60. LOL...you may be right...I'm not sure about that

as I'm tired and need to sleep so if I have anything else wise to say I'll comment tomorrow.....but honestly...I think if the shoe was on the other foot there would be alot of straight folks who would take offense....

ok..thanks for the great comments...

shut up and turn out the light jeff....

gnight

:toast:

[Redstone]

62. Sleep well.

Redstone

[Dastard Stepchild]

64. The only part I really don't like about the review...

is that he prefaces his emotions as a "straight, guy thing." Actually, it is HIS straight, guy thing. I've never been one for vague generalities. I know many men who are heterosexual and comfortable with what they will see in the theater when they view this film. Perhaps they are the exception to the rule and I run with a very different crowd. In fact, I don't presume that their level of comfort is universal, just as the reviewer should not assume that his is either.

I suppose he has the license to write about this in a film review, but it does deviate somewhat from his task of reviewing the actual film when he begins by reviewing his emotional response to it. Of course, that is something that movie reviewers do. So, then, I stand by my original statement - if he felt discomfort, he could mention that, but let it stand on its own instead if dragging in the ubiquitous "it's a natural straight response that all guys feel" statement. The justification, I think, is what makes it feel off. If ya feel it, ya feel it. Explore it or accept it, but don't slap it with a broad generalization.

[lady raven]

65. Good response

I don't think you're being too sensitive either.

If he truly was NOT a homophobe, being grossed out by seeing two aroused naked men making love would be NO more distateful to him than two aroused naked HETEROSEXUALS making love. For some reason, I doubt he has a problem watching a man and woman going at it. Or two women, for that matter (wink).

He clearly has a problem with the gay aspect. Usually when someone has to trumpet to the world that they are NOT homophobic, it's because they actually are. What a tool.

[I Have A Dream]

66. I feel that you're being too sensitive. This is a person who seems...

to be trying to support homosexual people but doesn't feel comfortable with the intimate details of at least male homosexuality. I think that it's appropriate for him to include it in his review since it seems to be a big part of the movie and, therefore, is something that many people reading the review might also wonder. In my opinion, we need to try to be patient with those who are truly trying to be inclusive. People can talk all they want, but it doesn't make it so. Denying things about oneself just because it's not politically correct doesn't make one truly politically correct. I think that this man is just being honest about his feelings, and he has a right to his voice just as each of us has a right to ours. This person really seems like an ally to me in our fight for equality for gay and lesbian people.

[JackDragna]

68. I'm not much for watching anyone have sex.

It's why I could never go to an orgy. To me, anyone having sex looks ridiculous. It's like some kind of bizarre medical procedure.

[Jamastiene]

69. There are lots of straight guys who aren't grossed out by it.

I'm a lesbian who totally isn't into naked men sexually, but the male body doesn't gross me out. Oddly enough, NON anal gay and/or straight sex doesn't gross me out. I'm just not attracted sexually to men, per se. I'm also not attracted to garbage which does gross me out. Garbage does, however, gross me out. What I am trying to say is I think it was your choice of words that the poster was appealing to. I don't think it was a bad response from a gay person really. To some degree, I agree with him that your choice of words and the way you described it seem to be foremost in your choice to put it in the first paragraph.

Just to be clear, your 1st paragraph does appear to be a paragraph writing/word choice mistake as opposed to out and out homophobic.

The only way I can help you understand what that person maybe meant is to mention that we GLBT people often hear the same choices of wording over and over again by the very people who ARE homophobes. The ones who ARE homophobes tend to abuse us physically and mentally in some very bad ways. It tends to accumulate in our psyches to the point that we get depressed by it. We have to go through life on eggshells hoping we don't make one wrong move and get attacked again. People like you, who seem to be mostly positive toward us in supporting our rights, per se, often get stuck in the middle of this dysfunctional cycle of violence and oppression. You don't understand what you did and we don't understand why it is so hard for some people in the middle to understand the psychological trauma we have endured.

[Jed Dilligan]

70. "Grossed out" is well-known as part of the natural progression

towards "turned on."

A truly straight guy wouldn't have any feelings at all (any more than in the locker room) beyond the emotions inspired by the film's scenario.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

71. Sounds like a concern with perspective

and that's valid in anyone reading someone else's opinion of art. No hoo-hoo.

For me, though, the real issue is what Lynne (Mrs. Big-time Dick) Cheney thinks of the film. Given the fact that she has profound A-list Repiglican "fambly valyooooooz" and also authored a western of her own ("Sisters") which contained scenes of turn-of-the-century Wyoming lesbian erotica, I would be interested in her take on "Brokeback Mountain."

It's sort of the obverse of the queries regarding whether the review's author would've found girl-girl scenes acceptable.

Unfortunately, it appears that "Brokeback Mountain" won't get a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. Is the cinematography good? How's the score? What about the acting? We may never know, since it's been ghettoized as "that gay cowboy movie." Assuming the lead actors are straight (I don't know) even an Oscar nod for acting will be tainted.

"Well, Bill, it appears "Brokeback Mountain" is a shoo-in for the Best Actor Oscar. After all, well, YOU know. I mean, like, those guys were heterosexuals playing homersectional cowboys! That's not exactly Dustin Hoffman in drag. That was some real, live ACTING!"