quote:This is getting tiring, Dag. You've accused Squick of harassing Kat, yes. You claim he persecutes her above all others. Throughout this entire thread, you've failed to back up your accusations in the slightest. And I fail to see how empty accusations break "through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism" -- perhaps you're trying to duplicate what you believe to be his misbehavior, so he might take a lesson from it? Or... what?
I'm sorry you're getting tired of asking me to something I've stated quite clearly that I am not going to do - something you are not demanding of Squicky, by the way. If you and Squick get to make vague references to past behavior, then so do I.
The appearance exists. This is a factual statement, because it appears that way to both Ic and to me. You are utterly unable to dispute it, because it's a statement about what others perceive. It is unquestionable that people are perceiving Squick's actions toward Kate in the manner I've described.
And the shell phrase is a direct paraphrase of something Squick said about Kat.
quote:If that was confusing structure, allow me to rephrase -- have you provided anything to "prove me wrong"?
You seem to think so, since you have been harping about what I've said. Regardless, if that's what you meant, then I misinterpreted that sentence. I read it as a continuation of "why do you believe the onus lies on me."
So just apply everything I said except the italicization part to the onus sentence. I've placed no onus on you. Do it if you want to. I don't care.
quote:You're in law school. You're more than intelligent enough to read a request for evidence -- much less many, many repeated ones -- and understand I'm not asking why you're forcing me to do something.
And you're intelligent enough to understand my many, many repeated statements that I am not going to do that, any more than you or Squick has done it with your accusations about Kat. Accusations you had dropped but seemed to have picked back up again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, you're supposing so many changes that it's hard to make this discussion coherent. First, if you make one of the characters female, I don't see how you can just assume Ennis would find her repugnant. Likewise, what follows above is you writing a completely different story about a woman who is so conflicted about her inner self she either can't be loved, or can't believe love is possible for her and thus kills it. That's a possible and potentially very compelling story to tell, but it's not remotely Brokeback Mountain, which only underscores my point.
My point is, (and you have to assume Ennis can love the female lead or there is no love story at all), Ennis could love her and marry her. One of the more popular vile things said about lesbians is that what one needs is the right man. I think even if "Jill" were the butchest lesbian around, she'd be more accepted by the community married to Ennis than she would being single. Ennis would probably be talked of as the man who was able to tame her, for that matter. The conflict in this story would be in Jill (the lesbian) entering into an unfulfilling relationship with Ennis for whatever motivations you give her. Or with Ennis frustratedly wooing someone who, to him, is a butch hottie, but she doesn't return the affection. Again, neither of those is Brokeback Mountain. The conflicts are different and the consequences of character choices are also different.
I'm not discounting whatever inner turmoil you want to assign to "Jill", or even whatever conflict you want to give Ennis and Jill between themselves as a couple. The fact is, though, if one is a man and one is a woman and all other external factors are equal, they have no obstacles to getting married and having a happy life. No one is going to bust into their cabin one dark night and kill them for their perversions. Jill isn't going to go shack up with a lesbian (and find acceptance in doing that) because society would find that more acceptable than a man marrying a butch woman.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Hey, when your appetite is as hit and miss as mine with all the chemo meds, the instant something sounds good to you, you better take advantage of it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No chicken, but she does feel like going to the fabric store to shop for fabric for her sofa slipcover project. See you peeps later.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And no, nobody's saying you're "making it up" -- I'm sure you sincerely believe me a liar. However, have you entertained the possibility, faint as it may seem to you, that you could be inaccurate? That you are, as ElJay suggested, confusing me with some other incident?
The comments were made to me after the landmark, referencing the prior remark and commenting on the irony of it. The memory I have is specifically tied to the landmark.
It's possible I'm mistaken - I can't find the thread. But the memory is tied specifically to your landmark. These people brought it up on their own after it was posted.
And no, I won't tell you their names and drag them into this. Disbelieve me if you want.
There is an incident where Tom talked about how he had been a Star Wars fan for longer than I was alive. That was amusing, but I am not confusing this with that.
You have said despicable things about Kat in this thread. You've backed them up not once. You've withdrawn them and then referred to them again. And the thing is, this does not disappoint me, because it's what I expect from you when the subject of Kat comes up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be clear, my whole involvement in this thread was because of a very flippant remark by airmanfour about how Brokeback Mountain was just a sappy new drama with a guy in the chick role. What I'm trying to defend here is the idea that the fact that Jack and Ennis are men is absolutely integral to Brokeback Mountain. If you change that, you no longer have Brokeback Mountain. You have some other movie that may or may not have poignant and truthful things to say about some kind of love, but it can't say the things Brokeback Mountain is saying about the kind of love it has chosen to portray.
Belle, I think we are argueing past each other similar to the way Kat and I were yesterday. (And Kat, if that is true, I appologize for taking offense too quickly.) I'm not saying gay love is incomparable. I'm saying it's irreplaceable. The attitude I have been percieving is that since both are remotely related under the archetype "Forbidden Love" then any kind could do just as good a job of telling the story as any other kind. That idea I do find very disrespectful, not just of gay love, but of any kind of forbidden love. Now, I'm not saying that you are arguing that point. I don't think you are. Are you? What follows is going on the assumption that neither you nor Kat was arguing that idea.
Kat, I see now what less invested people here have been saying about us talking past each other. If I re-write your posts taking them out of context as responses to me, specifically, I think I understand what you are saying. It was the juxtaposition of them as counter-points to my arguement (from an apparently totally different starting point) that initially made me take offense. I think if you read my posts as defense of the idea that although many forms of "forbidden love" can fall under that archetype and therefore can be compared and contrasted, they are not in themselves simply interchangeable I think you might see more sense in my points. To swap one out with the other would make a given story, though still dealing with "forbidden love", a different story because one form of "forbidden love" does not address the uniqueness of the other forms you might try to replace it with. I fully admit that although it was clear to me that was what I was defending, I failed in making that point clear to you. To the degree this description of my view of the issue is acceptable to you, I appologize for my part in the silliness that followed the initial disagreement.
Belle,
quote: If you're not claiming it's more transcendant, glorious, noble or better, then what are you saying?
I'm saying that it is different. I think that is important. It is unique as is each of the other forms that may fall under this archetype. While you could take Ennis and Jack and make them a heterosexual couple and add some other aspect to make their love forbidden, saying the new story is "the same" is to disrespect the uniqueness of their particular situation and their particular kind of "forbidden Love". This is in much the same way that it would be disrespectful to you to say that since your own life story falls under the archetype of Religious Inspirational Stories, nothing important would be lost by making you a Muslim or by having you deal with a gay husband instead of health and other challenges. Does that make sense?
To take this further, (to explain my point of view regarding disrespect), although we homosexuals would like our love to be seen as equal in validity[i] or even [i]in kind, it isn't equality in the mathematical sense I'm talking about. While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist. I'm not saying you are espousing this. I just think there is a fine line between accepting the similarities and not giving due respect to the differences. It's a line I think is worth noting and respecting. Does that make sense?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay victims trump marriage and family everytime in Hollywood. This movie only puts a glossy finish on it.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Well, you could also assert that tragic and painful stories are more interesting to most of us, as we live comfortable and largely un-tragic lives. For example, I've always loved the sad broken-heart ballads, even though I believe my heart has never been well-and-truly broken. Maybe because I have been so exceptionally lucky at love, I enjoy stories the horrible emotional torture people go through.
And gay love is ripe for that, dude. I think it's more interesting than "Mary and John fall in love and have babies." Happy realities are the best. Happy stories... you have to work really, really hard to make them not suck.
Just my two cents.
*ducks and covers*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Katie and I have exchanged a couple of emails and I have to say that I understand the situation better and can't at this point blame her any more than myself for the flare up between us. I believe if the topic had been less of a hot-button issue for me I would have tried harder to seek clarification before getting short. I think neither Katie nor I trusted each other enough to give the other the benefit of the doubt.
Katie, I retract my insinuations of dishonesty. I locked myself into an either/or estimation of your words and failed to see the truth in between. I'm sorry. I know I said this in the email, but the public insinuation calls for a public apology.
Karl, I'm sorry for my part in the misunderstanding, and especially for the bite me comment. I wish I hadn't said it - I shouldn't have. Thank you for your apology, and I'm glad everything is good between us. I respect you very much.
posted
Sorry I've been away from the computer most of the day. Work has been crazy which is why I've been on fora less in general when not out of town.
quote: it isn't equality in the mathematical sense I'm talking about. While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist. I'm not saying you are espousing this. I just think there is a fine line between accepting the similarities and not giving due respect to the differences. It's a line I think is worth noting and respecting.
That explains the difference in perspective I think. I am a bit more mathematical about it although I intend no disrespect. While there is uniqueness to each different kind of "forbidden love" I tend to see all romantic relationships, forbidden or not as two people, two humans, working things through together, and gender being less relevant in that process.
As was said in Ecclesiastes several thousand years ago "There is nothing new under the sun". Humans are humans and the spectrum of human emotions is basically the same as then. However, having said that, every individual is unique. And even while greater archetypes play out, where the beauty actually is, is how individual humans respond to each other. And that is a unique kaliedescope, that includes history, culture, sexual orientation etc. and where there aren't any identical repeats, ever.
quote: While it's possible to treat gay love equally to straight love and to accept it equally, it disengenuous to think this means they are one and the same. We all know there are differences: different challenges, different possibilities, different pitfalls not in all ways, or even most ways, but in ways that make one not the mathematical equal of the other. It would be disrespectful to extrapolate that into an attitude that dismisses these differences and acts as if they didn't exist.
I'm afraid to ask this question for fear that someone will interpret this as a nasty rhetorical question and start the fight over again. But this is a serious question and I am looking for an insightful answer. Please don't anyone take offense.
The arguement KarlEd uses here is frighteningly similar to an argument I've heard opponents of gay marriage use. They say that although there maybe many ways in which gay love and straight love are alike, the differences between them are real and important. They then claim that those difference justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
I don't believe that argument when its made by gay marriage opponents. I'm seriously trying to understand how the argument Karl is making differs. What are the differences between gay love and straight love that make it so that this story could never have happened between a man and woman? Why do those difference count in the telling of this story, but should be overlooked when considering whether two men should be allowed to marry?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were the same, there would be no basis for saying that gays could only be gay. It's a two edged sword.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think KarlEd is making a between the way he'd like to SEE gay marriage (indistinguishable, legally and socially, from heterosexual marriage) and the way gay marriage currently is (filled with "different challenges, different possibilites, different pitfalls").
In that sense, I think his argument that Brokeback Mountain represents a different movie than "just another forbidden love story" is valid without presuming to WANT the situation to remain that way. With most forbidden love stories, the situation isn't something we're struggling with so publicly in present society: the slave and the slave owner, the feuding Italian families, etc. all represent something that we can view as distant from ourselves, since those situations don't exist to the same extent anymore. I'm not trying to say that a white protestant girl with racist parents wouldn't have problems selling marriage to a black man to her parents, but the trials and tribulations involved would be different than those involved with her bringing home a woman.
Eventually, gay marriage may be commonplace or accepted enough in society that we WILL be able to look at a movie like Brokeback Mountain as "just another forbidden romance tale" - because the situation will be historical, rather than a present day struggle.
Beyond that, I think there will always be differences between gay and straight marriage - unavoidable differences, like the inability to conceive - just like there are differences and issues that other couples have to deal with and others don't.
(Karl, if I'm off base here, I apologize - feel free to slap me down and say "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU MORON!" at which point I will have to reference my previous posts in this thread and suggest we take it outside, with food)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:With most forbidden love stories, the situation isn't something we're struggling with so publicly in present society: the slave and the slave owner, the feuding Italian families, etc. all represent something that we can view as distant from ourselves, since those situations don't exist to the same extent anymore.
Agreed, I made the same comment several pages back, although it may have been lost in the petty bickering. If that is what Karl means, then my question is answered. But then I have another question. Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed, I made the same comment several pages back, although it may have been lost in the petty bickering.
It very well might have been - or lost in my nude food wrestling tangent.
quote:Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
I think it would have, again, been a different movie - since incestuous love is an issue that our present society (American) does not address: we simply write it off as wrong, wrong, wrong. If there's division on this issue, those who view it as something we should accept as normal are in the distinct minority. Unlike my examples in the previous post, this is not an issue we've dealt with on the same scale in the past, nor is it an issue we're actively dealing with presently.
For those who are interested in an interesting, engaging film involving an incestuous relationship, watch Oldboy.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate my key board. There is an absolutely stupid pair of "page back" and "page forward" buttons nestled with the arrow keys. I had a huge response to the last couple of posts above nearly ready to post and bumped the back page key and lost everything. I want to swear loudly, but I'm at work. $&@*! %&#*! #&%*!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit wrote: The arguement KarlEd uses here is frighteningly similar to an argument I've heard opponents of gay marriage use. They say that although there maybe many ways in which gay love and straight love are alike, the differences between them are real and important. They then claim that those difference justify limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
I don't believe that argument when its made by gay marriage opponents. I'm seriously trying to understand how the argument Karl is making differs.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, I think we're using "gay love"/"straight love" to mean "gay/straight relationships", otherwise the problem is meaningless since we don't (and indeed can't) legislate "love".
It is undeniable that there are differences in the details between gay and straight relationships. What they are, exactly, is perhaps a subject for a different thread. If someone wants to start one, I'll certainly post in it. I just think it's too complex a subject to include here. That said, I think there are "differences" and there are "legally significant differences". There are undeniable differences between Christian churches and Jewish churches, but none of them are legally significant. We use the same set of laws to govern both. The conflict between pro- and anti-SSM stances (once you strip away the useless rhetoric) isn't over the existence of the former, but over what constitutes the latter.
quote:What are the differences between gay love and straight love that make it so that this story could never have happened between a man and woman?
The differences are in the details, which are profoundly important if you want to go beyond labels and general classification and actually understand the individuals involved. If this movie were so generalized that any two characters or similarly conflicted relationships would do, it would not be a great movie. It would be a Harlequin Romance. If you replace one of the roles with a female role, it is no longer the story of Ennis and Jack. Not only could you not replace Ennis or Jack with a female role and still have the same story, you couldn't even replace the role of Ennis with a stronger, more self-confident Ennis, or the role of Jack with a Jack that was gay, but not attracted to Ennis. That's because the story isn't about "gay love" in a general sense any more than it's about "Cowboy Life in Wyoming" in any general sense. It's about the lives of two very specific cowboys who are gay and in love with each other and how they deal with it in the environment in which the story takes place. The story is great because it deals with individuals specific enough to be real and doesn't call upon them to represent a larger class in anything more than the most general way. It isn't a movie about "what happens when guys fall in love". On the other hand, if all you want is to say something very general about "forbidden love" then, no, it probably doesn't really matter whether you choose two men or a man and a woman to represent your forbidden love. Make sense?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without wanting to wade in too deeply, I think it comes down to at what remove you want to summarize things. Because I expect even the details you left out are important and differentiate the story from other stories, and this movie would not be the same regardless. But then, taken to an absurd extreme, summarization becomes impossible. So do you summarize this as a forbidden love story, or do you summarize this as forbidden love story between two gay men in this state and that era, and with these complicating issues? If you summarize this as a forbidden love story, then you could well lump it in with other forbidden love stories.
That doesn't mean flippantly dismissing it as a forbidden love story is not insensitive; just that, beyond that, we're debating details, or possibly semantics.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:erosomniac wrote: (Karl, if I'm off base here, I apologize - feel free to slap me down and say "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU MORON!" at which point I will have to reference my previous posts in this thread and suggest we take it outside, with food)
Although (see above) my specific arguement is different from what you supposed, I agree with what you wrote.
quote:The Rabbit wrote: Could this story have been written about heterosexual love if the man and woman had been brother and sister.
This story, no. Perhaps a story with many more common elements than if they were just an un-related straight couple, but it would still be a different story. And before I get misunderstood, I'm not equating gay relationships with incestuous ones, though I imagine a man in this hypothetical story could deal with some very similar inner turmoil as the character of Ennis is in Brokeback Mountain. But you would also lose other elements that I think are integral to Brokeback Mountain and take on elements that Brokeback Mountain can't address if you want the new story to be realistic.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Without wanting to wade in too deeply, I think it comes down to at what remove you want to summarize things. Because I expect even the details you left out are important and differentiate the story from other stories, and this movie would not be the same regardless. But then, taken to an absurd extreme, summarization becomes impossible. So do you summarize this as a forbidden love story, or do you summarize this as forbidden love story between two gay men in this state and that era, and with these complicating issues? If you summarize this as a forbidden love story, then you could well lump it in with other forbidden love stories.
That doesn't mean flippantly dismissing it as a forbidden love story is not insensitive; just that, beyond that, we're debating details, or possibly semantics.
Yes, but again, I wasn't arguing the classification of the movie or where, specifically, you should shelve it in your collection. I was defending it against airmanfour's implied insult (which I subsequently incorrectly thought Katie was defending)that it was such Hollywood pablum that they might as well have stuck a chick in the Jack role, because, after all, it would still be the same story.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Apparently, Larry Miller (the theater owner) was unaware of the content of the movie until a radio personality called him to get his take on it.
That was the day before it opened.
So if that's true, it certainly makes his motivations a little clearer. But I don't want to revive the discussion, I just thought this was pertinent.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I was defending it against airmanfour's implied insult (which I subsequently incorrectly thought Katie was defending)that it was such Hollywood pablum that they might as well have stuck a chick in the Jack role, because, after all, it would still be the same story.
