random username
Junior Member
The following is a post made by 'alainsane' from this thread. My responses are preceded by '----'.
So you're saying that the growing fondness and the shared experiences (neither of which was amply developed imo) was a proper build up for the semi-consensual rape scene that occurred in the tent? Pshaw.
---Your emotive and grossly inappropriate use of the word "rape" in this context betrays an extremely limited, and somewhat prudish, understanding of the complex sexual dynamics that often occur between consenting adults.
There is a reason why you feel so uncomfortable watching "that" scene, but you haven't mentioned it in this post.
Perhaps if the film had been two or three years long, the relationship leading up to "that" scene may have been "amply developed" enough for you.
I suppose When Harry Met Sally would have been just as romantic if Harry had taken Sally forcefully and violently in the bathroom of the roadside diner on their first road trip. Or if instead of Oooohing in her ear, the masked man had instead fingered Amelie on the amusement park ride. Orrr....(to be fair to both sexes) what would we have thought if Buttercup had shoved Wesley to the ground, straddled his face and commanded, "Eat me, farm boy," with Wesley replying a muffled "As you wish." Would we have stood for these betrayal of characters and still considered them love stories? I think not.
----You appear to prefer the sanitised piffle churned out with such regularity to appease those who like everything neat and tidy with a happy ending grafted on so you can feel well and truly "entertained".
If realism is so traumatic for you, then perhaps you should wrap yourself in the duvet with a tub of Ben & Jerry's and watch a nice harmless old Doris Day movie.
You might want to select one where Rock Hudson isn't the co-star, I know how sensitive you are to "that" type of thing...
The betrayal of characters arose when the moviemakers or author or whoever took a character like Heath Ledger's--a man who by his own words seems to be a virgin of every kind--and put him in a situation where's he's wetting his palm so he can lube his penis before penetrating his partner. How would he even know how or why to do that?? Is that the expectable consummation of their burgeoning relationship? Reasonably, wouldn't some kind of touching/fondling have preceded that act...if they were trying to set up a good love story, I mean.
----"a virgin of every kind"?
I think we can safely assume that he'd, more than likely, enjoyed intimacies with women, given that he is an attractive man, and it may surprise you to know that the method of lubrication you describe, sometimes referred to as the "spit 'n' shove", is often used by heterosexual men prior to "normal" intercourse.
I suspect your wife can confirm this.
Yes, there are gratuitous hetero sex scenes in movies. I don't particularly like those scenes either. And rarely are the movies containing such scenes the ones I hold dear--certainly not in any "love story."
The basic problem lies in the hype that surrounded the movie. It's trumpeted as a love story like no other, and indeed, after that dubious start, it was a touching and tragic love story. It doesn't explain or excuse what happened before, though.
----"dubious", "doesn't explain or excuse".... have you heard yourself?
I'm not sure what happened to you in life to give you such a jaundiced attitude and make you feel so "uncomfortable" about "that" scene in Brokeback Mountain, but i don't suppose you have ever been moved to post your objections to any other scenes, depicting sex acts, in mainstream movies.
The number of times I've seen male characters forcing themselves on their female conquests, who often appear to be unwilling participants, or at least initially, is too numerous to mention. 'Basic Instinct' springs to mind, but there have been literally hundreds more.
Let's face it, the root of your discomfort lies in the fact that it is two men, and that the sex is primitive and perfunctory, not sanitised and "romantic", as you would have it.
"That" scene was both vital for the movie, and, in a wider context, vital for the continuing development of understanding, tolerance and acceptance of those who have been, and continue to be, persecuted and victimised in society.
The fact that the central characters were not depicted in the usual fashion, that of simpering effeminate caricatures, to appease the delicate sensibilities of the majority of heterosexuals, who can only tolerate gay men on screen if they can laugh at them, is to be applauded rather than criticised.
It's not too long ago that a similar fuss would have been made about an "inter-racial" kiss being shown on TV, and how "uncomfortable" did it make some people feel to see a black man having sex with a white woman?
I suggest you watch the movie again with an open mind, you may discover that the scene where Jake Gyllenhaal's character is beaten to death because he is gay is where your discomfort should begin and end.
So you're saying that the growing fondness and the shared experiences (neither of which was amply developed imo) was a proper build up for the semi-consensual rape scene that occurred in the tent? Pshaw.
---Your emotive and grossly inappropriate use of the word "rape" in this context betrays an extremely limited, and somewhat prudish, understanding of the complex sexual dynamics that often occur between consenting adults.
There is a reason why you feel so uncomfortable watching "that" scene, but you haven't mentioned it in this post.
Perhaps if the film had been two or three years long, the relationship leading up to "that" scene may have been "amply developed" enough for you.
I suppose When Harry Met Sally would have been just as romantic if Harry had taken Sally forcefully and violently in the bathroom of the roadside diner on their first road trip. Or if instead of Oooohing in her ear, the masked man had instead fingered Amelie on the amusement park ride. Orrr....(to be fair to both sexes) what would we have thought if Buttercup had shoved Wesley to the ground, straddled his face and commanded, "Eat me, farm boy," with Wesley replying a muffled "As you wish." Would we have stood for these betrayal of characters and still considered them love stories? I think not.
----You appear to prefer the sanitised piffle churned out with such regularity to appease those who like everything neat and tidy with a happy ending grafted on so you can feel well and truly "entertained".
If realism is so traumatic for you, then perhaps you should wrap yourself in the duvet with a tub of Ben & Jerry's and watch a nice harmless old Doris Day movie.
You might want to select one where Rock Hudson isn't the co-star, I know how sensitive you are to "that" type of thing...
The betrayal of characters arose when the moviemakers or author or whoever took a character like Heath Ledger's--a man who by his own words seems to be a virgin of every kind--and put him in a situation where's he's wetting his palm so he can lube his penis before penetrating his partner. How would he even know how or why to do that?? Is that the expectable consummation of their burgeoning relationship? Reasonably, wouldn't some kind of touching/fondling have preceded that act...if they were trying to set up a good love story, I mean.
----"a virgin of every kind"?
I think we can safely assume that he'd, more than likely, enjoyed intimacies with women, given that he is an attractive man, and it may surprise you to know that the method of lubrication you describe, sometimes referred to as the "spit 'n' shove", is often used by heterosexual men prior to "normal" intercourse.
I suspect your wife can confirm this.
Yes, there are gratuitous hetero sex scenes in movies. I don't particularly like those scenes either. And rarely are the movies containing such scenes the ones I hold dear--certainly not in any "love story."
The basic problem lies in the hype that surrounded the movie. It's trumpeted as a love story like no other, and indeed, after that dubious start, it was a touching and tragic love story. It doesn't explain or excuse what happened before, though.
----"dubious", "doesn't explain or excuse".... have you heard yourself?
I'm not sure what happened to you in life to give you such a jaundiced attitude and make you feel so "uncomfortable" about "that" scene in Brokeback Mountain, but i don't suppose you have ever been moved to post your objections to any other scenes, depicting sex acts, in mainstream movies.
The number of times I've seen male characters forcing themselves on their female conquests, who often appear to be unwilling participants, or at least initially, is too numerous to mention. 'Basic Instinct' springs to mind, but there have been literally hundreds more.
Let's face it, the root of your discomfort lies in the fact that it is two men, and that the sex is primitive and perfunctory, not sanitised and "romantic", as you would have it.
"That" scene was both vital for the movie, and, in a wider context, vital for the continuing development of understanding, tolerance and acceptance of those who have been, and continue to be, persecuted and victimised in society.
The fact that the central characters were not depicted in the usual fashion, that of simpering effeminate caricatures, to appease the delicate sensibilities of the majority of heterosexuals, who can only tolerate gay men on screen if they can laugh at them, is to be applauded rather than criticised.
It's not too long ago that a similar fuss would have been made about an "inter-racial" kiss being shown on TV, and how "uncomfortable" did it make some people feel to see a black man having sex with a white woman?
I suggest you watch the movie again with an open mind, you may discover that the scene where Jake Gyllenhaal's character is beaten to death because he is gay is where your discomfort should begin and end.
Last edited:
I started Something I Couldn't Finnish'. I just mean't it sounded bad to my ears, I am not anti-gay or anything.
