You seem to have a big problem with the fact that two men *gasp* had anal sex in a movie about two men falling in love. Would you have had the same complaint if one of them was a woman? What if they had oral sex instead of anal?
It's called I fvcked up when I was typing. I started to say "Jack isn't straight" then decided to say "Jack is gay" but apparently didn't delete enough of what I'd already typed.
I don't know why you keep clinging to the notion of what "straight" men do or don't do or why you think it's relevant to Brokeback Mountain. Again, sexuality isn't black and white. People aren't just straight or gay. Even the term bisexual doesn't really fit most people who fall somewhere inbetween since many of them are more strongly attracted to one sex over the other.
Yeah, once they reunited they had to come up with excuses for meeting in private. That's called being in the closet and trying to keep it secret for safety's sake. Not an unwise thing considering the risks. Not that it ultimately did Jack much good.
Vicky, where do you get the idea I have a big problem with the sex in the movie. I knew what it was about going in - if I had such a problem with it, I wouldn't have watched it. I'm not complaining about it - that was the plot. We're just discussing it.
Regarding the typo - no sweat. I make these constantly myself and am always getting tenses mixed up. I'd never hold a typo against anyone (unless it's a really funny one - then I'll have fun with it!)
The one area where I'll kind of disagree is on the orientation issue (which has pretty much been my only point all along). These were two homosexuals in denial. I have this opinion because I kind of buy into the current prevailing idea (within the psychiatric & medical community) that homosexuality is not a choice, but that MOST homosexuals are born with the potentiality already in their genes.
But PC thinking goes a step further and tries to introduce the idea that maybe one or both of the characters in this movie were straight and were seduced into homosexuality since it is such a healthy and natural thing.
As "incorrect" and objectionable as it is to say, the truth is that straight men are usually repulsed by gay sex - not by homosexuals, but by the acts of gay sex. Straight men don't get seduced into homosexuality or fall in love with other men and must therefore convert their orientation, or have an off night where they slip into it - unless they already have gay or bi-sexual inclinations.
That's really the only thing I take issue with - and not even the film tried to say that (I don't think), but I've heard a lot of people try to apply this philosophy to the film -
That it's not just about two gay men living in a time & place where they were forced to hide their true selves from their families, society and even from themselves, but that heterosexual men can and will fall into homosexuality with the "right" person once they overcome the ages old stigma attached to it because it is just a natural state of being. Because being straight is really just one of several choices - but that choice is based on a cultural fallacy that is conditioned into men by traditional society & religion, while in reality they are all equally latent homosexuals or bi-sexuals because there is no standard of sexuality, all humans are just born as sexual beings. The new doctrine states that there is no "natural" biologically-driven sexual orientation.
Some have tried to apply the same discriminant philosophy onto heteros that has been applied to homosexuals for centuries.
But then, what goes around comes around.