Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Activists’ Overreaction to Slights, Perceived Slights & Bad Policies

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:37 pm - January 8, 2006.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics,Movies/Film & TV

One of the (several) reasons I have long since stopped reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog (which was once the first blog I read every day) is that, shortly after the president announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (support we have repeatedly criticized, here for example) , his posts have become increasingly emotional and less and less responsible. On February 24, 2004, his response to the president’s announcement more closely resembled a child’s temper tantrum than it did a rational response to a bad policy.

It seems the Andrew’s overly emotional responses to bad policies and bizarre comments on gay issues is par for the course for gay activists. I noted here how “easily outraged” the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was when they pitched a fit at the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts. That group’s hyperbolic rhetoric obscured its valid criticism of the Vatican’s proposed “instruction” preventing the ordination of gay men as priests.

The reaction of some gay activists and media types to Today show movie critic Gene Shalit’s description of Jack Gyllenhaal’s’ Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain as a “sexual predator” seems similarly hyperbolic. The more I think about that description, the odder it appears. As the comments section to my previous post on the topic indicate, it appears that way to a number of our readers as well.

That said, given Gene Shalit’s past writing on his gay son, it’s clear this film critic does not harbor anti-gay sentiments. Yet, both GLAAD and Advocate, the magazine which first published Shalit’s piece, both defined the remarks as anti-gay. Odd word choice, yes, but anti-gay, no. After all, there are gay sexual predators (just as there are straight sexual predators). Identifying someone as such is thus not per se an anti-gay statement.

Because Shalit has already made clear that his son’s sexuality did not alter his feelings for the younger man, GLAAD should have given him the benefit of the doubt. Instead of posting a hysterical press release, demanding that people contact NBC and demand that Shalit apologize, they should have contacted him privately and asked for a clarification of his unusual description. Or perhaps even reached out to his son. Their release made clear that Shalit had an openly gay son.

In short, GLAAD, like so many gay activists reacting to other slights (or perceived slights) against gays, overreacted to what, in context, seems to amount to no more than a poor choice of words. Instead of issuing an angry press release, they should have found a more diplomatic (and less public) means to address Mr. Shalit’s comments.

With this release, they become increasingly like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, decrying a threat where there is none. And like that boy, they are less likely to be taken seriously when they draw attention to real threats.

Andrew Sullivan would be wise as well not to get so excited by similar imperfections in the world at large.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

33 Comments

  1. The organizations may just be caught up in their own rhetoric. They’ve made names for themselves by being on the front lines and now feel obligated to run up to that line each and every time. Otherwise, they take a chance on being ignored in the future and/or attacked by the more bitter elements of our community. Think of all the absurd statements the Religious Right makes about almost anything. Once you commit publicly to a view, your relevance (and funding) become dependent on a linear path of thought and action. As our circumstances continue to change these forces will become more of an embaressment and eventually a bad joke.

    Its so very true of Sullivan. He was making intelligent and reasoned argument for the war and about Bush, and was enduring some serious homophobic insults from the left almost daily, until that amendment. Suddenly, everything he ever said was thrown away for a brand new line of thought and belief.

    Comment by VinceTN — January 8, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - January 8, 2006

  2. I think you meant 2004.

    Shalit — sorry, but I have a major concern about *anyone* who uses words like “sexual predator” to describe a relationship between gay men. There are a lot of people out there who believe gay men work to seduce straight men, to turn them gay, and that was what his comments came across as to me.

    Yes he has a gay son, he accepts him, but how people treat their child and how they treat others can be night and day.

    If we just ignore this type of comment, then how many people are going to think gays have no problem being referred to as sexual predators?

    Comment by Carl — January 8, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - January 8, 2006

  3. I’ve definitely noticed that about Sully, too.

    Regarding Gene Shalit – identifying someone as a sexual predator is not itself anti-gay, IF THE PERSON IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR. I can’t comment on BBM because I haven’t seen the film yet, but the Anne Proulx story certainly does not describe any sexual predators. Calling consensual sex between two adult men “predatory” can scarcely be anything other than anti-gay. This is a concern, and I don’t think Gene Shalit should get a free pass because of his great PFLAG credentials.

    PS – Do you have an open tag somewhere?

    Comment by Asher - Dreams Into Lightning — January 8, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - January 8, 2006

  4. Carl, in #2, thanks for catching my error, since corrected. Since there are gay men who are sexual predators, describing one as such, odd though it is in this context, doesn’t amount to anti-gay prejudice.

    I didn’t say ignore the comment. In the post, I suggested GLAAD should just have not raised a public ruckus and instead contacted Shalit privately. But, even if people did let this comment slide, I only think that those who already believe all gay men are sexual predators would assume that Shalit meant to say as much.

    In the context of his life, it’s clear he didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. It was just a poor choice of words.

    And people are blowing this way out of proportion by assuming that others will read into it that all gay men are sexual predators. I don’t think the remark registered for other people as it did to those gay activists always on the look out slightest whiff of bigotry.

    Remember, this is just one movie about the gay experience. I fear that too many gay men see this as the defining movie of our experience. Perhaps, it is because some see it as such that they have become so thin-skinned about Shalit’s critique.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 8, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - January 8, 2006

  5. GPW, thanks for your recent e-mail about the technical bug. Looks like it’s a Safari issue, as you say.

    I haven’t seen either the movie or the review yet myself, so I’ll defer to your judgment on Shalit – although I will spend the rest of the night racking my brains to figure out how the phrase “sexual predator” can possibly be meant “not in a derogatory way.”

    Comment by Asher Abrams — January 8, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - January 8, 2006

  6. Asher, I meant not in a derogatory way about gays in general. That is, just because he thinks one gay movie character is a “sexual predator” doesn’t mean he thinks all gay men are sexual predators.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 8, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - January 8, 2006

  7. -Since there are gay men who are sexual predators, describing one as such, odd though it is in this context, doesn’t amount to anti-gay prejudice.-

    It does if he is leaving the impression that this relationship was formed on a basis of something sick, or something bad, which is what “sexual predator” conjures up. He also simplified their relationship as only being about sex. So what he was saying was that Jack was a sexual predator and Jack and Ennis were only having sex, no real emotional ties. How many times have we heard people claim gay men only care about a roll in the hay, and are incapable of emotional love?

    I thought his comments were really strange and I think they show just how paranoid some people are about relationships between men.

    Comment by Carl — January 9, 2006 @ 12:10 am - January 9, 2006

  8. Carl, you’re seeing way too much into this. I agree his comments were strange, but just because he suggests that this relationship involved a sexual predator doesn’t mean people will see all gay relationships as involving such predators.

    It seems he did see their relationship as only about sex, but, as I wrote in my first post on the flick, I didn’t find much chemistry between the two characters. When they were on screen together, I didn’t sense that they were in love. The movie did show them, for lack of better term, going at it. So, obviously there was sexual desire. And given the absence of chemistry, I don’t see Shalit’s observation as an unfair criticism, at least, of the relationship as portrayed in this flick.

    And yes, many times we have heard that gay men only care about a roll in the hay — and are incapable of emotional love. In fact, one of the first people to make this claim to me happened to me one of the first gay men I met.

    That said, I just don’t see Shalit saying that. He was reviewing one movie. Just reviewing one movie, not making a cultural commentary. His comments, strange though they were, apply to that flick — and that flick alone. (And not to gays in general.)

    So, read his remarks as such, and don’t read into them an animus toward gay people — or our relationships — especially when there is evidence to the contrary, evidence that he holds favorable views of gays.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 9, 2006 @ 12:27 am - January 9, 2006

  9. -And given the absence of chemistry, I don’t see Shalit’s observation as an unfair criticism, at least, of the relationship as portrayed in this flick.-

    There may have been no chemistry between them, but the relationship was at least supposed to involve . If they were just having sex, Ennis never would have been so caught up with what happened to Jack later on, and they probably wouldn’t have kept meeting up all those years. I could say I didn’t see any chemistry in Pretty Woman (I didn’t), but I knew the characters were supposed to fall in love. If Shalit has made similar comments about movies with heterosexual romances, then I will give him credit, but he made these comments about this movie, for some reason.

    And yes, many times we have heard that gay men only care about a roll in the hay — and are incapable of emotional love. In fact, one of the first people to make this claim to me happened to me one of the first gay men I met.-

    I think this just shows how destructive these fallacies (that gay man can’t love, can’t feel emotions beyond rutting) can be for gay men.

    Comment by Carl — January 9, 2006 @ 1:16 am - January 9, 2006

  10. Let’s see if I understand you: You stopped reading Sullivan because of what? Because he gets emotional about equality? Because, as a true conservative, he finds manifold faults and flaws with GWB’s anti-conservatism? Because his “own” party has used sexual orientation as a means of division and derision? Because he’s “shrill?” Because, as a libertarian conservative, he can’t fathom how GWB and the Republicans can outspend LBJ and the Democrats?

    I often disagree with Sullivan, but by no means as often as I disagree with the two of you. And talk about “shrill?” Mirror, anyone? Everyone is an activist, you two included, whether or not you like the appellation.

    Often I read my opposition’s point of view to see all sides of a matter. I also read my proponent’s point of view to share in the comraderie. But given your own incoherence and inconsistencies, and frankly “stupid” ideas, I still try to capture what a minority of a minority is thinking.

    Maybe, and I stress “maybe,” Sullivan can be shrill. I characterize it more as vehement. Considering what is being done by “our” government, the one you two dudes laud, I don’t think Sullivan has been vehement enough. We’re in the midst of Nixonian Fascism II, aka GWB, and you two are nodding supportively? One CAN’T be shrill enough when it comes to fundamentals about our democratic republic, the minimum competence of a minimal government, and a government hostile to ONE minority it preys upon to energize its base: GAYS.

    Loud and long may Sullivan squeal!

    Comment by Stephen — January 9, 2006 @ 4:22 am - January 9, 2006

  11. Guys, guys…. Here is how an intelligent (re)viewer could perhaps come to view the Jack Twist character as basically a predator or stalker.

    1) Ennis wasn’t going to do anything with Jack. Jack basically exploited their situation of extreme isolation and loneliness to corner Ennis and impale himself on Ennis, initiating a sexual relationship that wouldn’t have otherwise existed.

    2) After the summer was over, Ennis inwardly pined for Jack, true; but Ennis had a wife and kids he was fairly happy with, and Jack, showing absolutely zero concern for them, continued to re-insert himself into Ennis’ life needlessly (except to Jack) and across a distance of 1500 miles. Jack just couldn’t leave well enough alone (Ennis’ new life).

    3) Jack himself admitted the whole relationship was, in essence, a series of high-altitude f*cks.

    4) Far from Ennis being a great, noble love for Jack, Jack didn’t hesitate to turn to other men or even Third-world prostitutes when his lust and neediness led him to. Jack whined about love a great deal, but in reality, and like all needy people, he was incapable of genuinely loving anyone.

    A gay, filmmaker, liberal friend of mine said it best to me today. He hated BBM because he “cannot imagine a more perfect commercial for the Religious Right view of all gays as empty, sexually greedy, corrupt and doomed to loneliness or worse. Far from complaining about this movie, the RR should be trumpeting it in their ex-gay re-education camps.”

    Flame away! 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2006 @ 4:34 am - January 9, 2006

  12. Jack, showing absolutely zero concern for them, continued to re-insert himself into Ennis’ life

    Huh Huh Huh. Huh Huh Huh.You said “Insert” Huh Huh Huh.

    Comment by V the K — January 9, 2006 @ 8:48 am - January 9, 2006

  13. Huh Huh Huh. Huh Huh Huh. I just realized Ennis sounds like Anus. Huh Huh Huh.

    Comment by V the K — January 9, 2006 @ 8:50 am - January 9, 2006

  14. -2) After the summer was over, Ennis inwardly pined for Jack, true; but Ennis had a wife and kids he was fairly happy with,-

    Didn’t Ennis only marry her after the summer with Jack? The marriage was not exactly full of love.

    I guess you could see Jack as a sexual predator, if you think Ennis had no free will or brain of his own. More likely I think that Shalit thought Ennis was the “straight” one and Jack was the “gay” one, and that Jack was trying to turn Ennis gay.

    Comment by Carl — January 9, 2006 @ 9:42 am - January 9, 2006

  15. Maybe Shalit simply used the wrong term to describe Jack. To me, the characterization, while an opinion, is inaccurate, almost to the point of saying that Jack and Ennis tended goats instead of sheep.

    #11 Calarato, I’m assuming you are playing the role of devil’s advocate, but I’ll bite.

    1) Jack probably did initiate a sexual relationship that would have never existed. But even during the first sexual encounter, Jack didn’t say, “Oh please Jake, don’t impale yourself on me.” It looked like Ennis got pretty agressive there. And the next day, Ennis doesn’t say, “oh, please Jack, don’t force me to snuggle with you.”

    2) If instead, Ennis wrote on the postcard “No” instead of “you bet,” and then continued to send him postcards, you could make an argument, but still falls short of being a predator.

    3) Even if true, still not even close to being a predator. Besides, Jack clearly said that in the context of wanting more in the relationship.

    4) We could argue whether or not Jack was cheating on Ennis by having sex with other men, since despite their love there was no clear commitment. Again, this doesn’t even come close to being a predator.

    I’m a big prude when it comes to sex, a big believer in monogamy, and in a monogamous relationship now. But I just can’t see how anyone could view Jack as a predator. So I’ll try to chalk it up to a bad choice of words by Shalit.

    Comment by Pat — January 9, 2006 @ 10:05 am - January 9, 2006

  16. One CAN’T be shrill enough when it comes to fundamentals about our democratic republic, the minimum competence of a minimal government, and a government hostile to ONE minority it preys upon to energize its base: GAYS.

    Stephen:

    I think the fact that nobody is bothering to answer you is demonstration of what happens when a person has a known record of shrillness and hyperbole. For an understanding of this psychological phenomenon, please read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 9, 2006 @ 10:22 am - January 9, 2006

  17. I agree with Pat here. Though I intensely disliked the movie and the character, I fail to see how he can be termed a sexual predator.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 9, 2006 @ 11:52 am - January 9, 2006

  18. Carl, in #9, yes, the relationship was supposed to involve more than sex, but I can see how someone read it that way. Remember, people see the same movies differently.

    Stephen in #10, I stopped reading Sullivan because he stopped making sense — and stopped making rational arguments. And seemed to be repeating anti-Bush talking points in a very emotional tone.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 9, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - January 9, 2006

  19. The term “sexual predator” is certainly an ugly anti-gay description of a gay relationship. Its just the old prejudice that gay men seduce others into their “lifestyle” rather than simply being born. It also honestly doesn’t really matter that Gene Shalit is not “anti-gay” himself and has a gay son. Many who describe themselves as such harbor these prejudices. After all, there are often even gay men who think that wayl, its just not that uncommon of a prejudice to hold. It does not mean that Shalit is a bigot, but it does mean that he needs to examine his thinking a bit more closely. I think it is appropriate for Glaad to bring it to his attention.

    Shalit’s review reminds me of what I call the “living room test” of whether or not someone still holds prejudices. Its just a fact that many people who consider themselves broad-minded and supportive of gay and lesbian equality find it an entirely different matter to have a gay couple sitting on their couch in the living room holding hands.

    Anti-gay prejudice, like all such prejudices, is culturally rooted and by definition deeply emotional. It takes a very long time for logic and reason to overcome them. Often generations. This is true even for gay men and lesbians, even when it comes to ourselves. How often do you still see the words “straight acting-straight appearing”? If gays and lesbians still hold many of these prejudices ourselves, we can afford to cut our straight brethren some slack. But that doesn’t mean we don’t bring it to their attention.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 9, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - January 9, 2006

  20. #15 – Hi Pat,

    Yes, I was playing Devil’s Advocate and you’ve made all very good points. I mean, I wouldn’t go so far as to call the Jack Twist character a predator either.

    But neither was he mature, much less heroic. The tone “How could Shalit have concluded he was a predator?” in some commentary strikes me as not very honest. Maybe “predator” is going a bit too far, but come on folks, it’s not THAT difficult to understand how Shalit would get there.

    I’d say Jack Twist was maybe a low-grade or borderline stalker, who got lucky (in being given the time of day by the object of his affections, rather than a restraining order).

    And a lot of us gays know all about being obsessed with a confused or mixed-signal straight-ish/bi friend, at some point in our lives, right? We don’t like to admit it – admitting it plays into the “predator” and “pathetic” sterotypes, both of which hurt – so we’re mad at Shalit for saying it.

    And maybe Jack’s getting lucky, in his sexual obsession for his friend, is a wish-fulfillment for us? and that’s part of the film’s appeal? And the visible hand-wringing and “suffering” in the film just gives us plausible deniability on that? 😉 BBM: Fantasy of a Stalker.

    Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 9, 2006

  21. #20 cont. – And as to the point that Ennis gave Jack a postcard saying “You bet”, rather than “No” –

    You’re right, that disqualifies Jack as a full-blown stalker/predator. That’s my point – That’s the wish-fulfillment, right there. In real life, many who voice their desire for their confused, straight-ish friend will get the postcard that says “No”.

    And then it’s interesting to see how they handle it, or what they do next. Maybe Jack would have gone into full-blown stalking; maybe he would have gone into the bottle; maybe he would have simply felt bad awhile, then moved on; maybe he would have become a therapist to the Martians. We’ll never know – those are different movies.

    Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - January 9, 2006

  22. More succinctly: BBM is the movie that asks the question “What happens when your confused, straight-ish friend that you’ve been obsessed about actually says Yes? Will it work out? Or will you both find new ways to doom yourselves?”

    Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - January 9, 2006

  23. I will point out that in most cases that when a man makes a pass at a woman he is not considered a “sexual predator”. But that the reverse is not true if it’s a gay man. Double-standard.

    And even if a sexual advance is unwanted, so what?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 9, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - January 9, 2006

  24. -Carl, in #9, yes, the relationship was supposed to involve more than sex, but I can see how someone read it that way. Remember, people see the same movies differently.-

    I’m not sure if they can read it that way or not. Even if they thought the actors had no chemistry, would they really view that scene with Ennis and Jack’s shirt as something a man would do if he was only interested in a hookup?

    Peter Shalit wrote to GLAAD to defend his father:

    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid24216.asp

    Comment by Carl — January 9, 2006 @ 6:42 pm - January 9, 2006

  25. Carl, I was working on my post on the topic while you were commenting!

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 9, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - January 9, 2006

  26. #23 – It’s not about making mere passes, Gryph. But the fact that you are thinking in those terms tells me the whole argument is lost on you anyway.

    Comment by Calarato — January 10, 2006 @ 2:43 am - January 10, 2006

  27. #20 Calarato, I still don’t see how one could come up with Jack being a predator in the same way I don’t see how one could come up with saying that Jack and Ennis tended elephants instead of sheep. But enough of that.

    You brought up an interesting point, though, regarding the possibility that Jack could have been a stalker. Yes, he did get lucky that Ennis responded positively to his advances. Had he not been so lucky, maybe his behavior would have turned into one as a stalker, and in turn, a predator. We will never know.

    Looking at this type of speculation a different way…
    Where Jack and Ennis were not lucky is the obstacles to having an open, honest relationship with each other. Enough so, that right or wrong, they both felt they had to get married. Remember, Ennis had ingrained in his mind the image of the gay man being murdered for being gay. Even though we all agree that murder is immoral, things get quite a bit muddied for them when there seemed to be tolerance for such an act. So it’s not surprising that both of them hide behind marriage to cover up the fact that they’re gay. In fact, most feel that when Jack died, it was a result of him becoming more open about being gay, and then rewarded by being murdered by the tire iron, as opposed to the improbable scenario that Lureen recites.

    So a lot here look at marriage this way

    Moral=get married and stay true to the marriage vows or don’t get married
    Immoral=get married and violate the vows of marriage

    I view it the same way, but not as black and white as some.

    So, what if Jack and Ennis lived in a world where, at the very least, gay relationships are tolerated, and murder of gay individuals is not tolerated and looked down upon as any other murder? My guess is that they wouldn’t have been “immoral” regarding marriage, and would have made a go of the relationship.

    The sad thing is that even today, with more tolerance and acceptance, many gay individuals still feel they have to and/or simply choose to get married for various reasons. Some of them are celebrities or politicians, who do so to either maintain or accumulate more power or for getting more money playing sports, acting in films, or whatever.

    I have more sympathy for Jack and Ennis, because it wasn’t because of money or power that they broke their marriage vows. Whereas some closeted gay celebrities intentionally enter straight marriages, because they want to earn $100 million instead of $50 million. Even if these individuals don’t break their marriage vows until the inevitable divorce, I can’t muster any sympathy for them as I would for couples like Ennis and Jack. I view such people entering these marriage as more immoral.

    Comment by Pat — January 10, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - January 10, 2006

  28. So, what if Jack and Ennis lived in a world where, at the very least, gay relationships are tolerated

    It makes no difference, since nobody is being forced to marry.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 10, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - January 10, 2006

  29. Pat,

    Ennis was hardly “gay”, in the Kinsey 5-6 sense of the word. Maybe he was “bi”, or as I call it, “straight-ish”. The filmmaker quite deliberately left us with no doubt whatsoever as to Ennis’ interest in, and ability to perform with, the opposite sex, devoting considerable screen time to it. That Ennis was also interested in Jack goes to, again, his “bi” or “straight-ish” thing.

    Jack was a predator – I am going to say it plainly – because Jack couldn’t leave Ennis life with his wife and 2 kids alone.

    It’s bad enough that Jack was willing to throw aside his own kid (which is what going to Ennis would have meant in those days), but, OK, it was only one kid and Jack’s decision. But did he have to screw up Ennis’ family life as well?

    Granted Ennis has the chief share of responsibility (chiefly for also giving zero thought to his own wife). I am not denying that. But let me put it this way: If the term “predator” simply makes no sense to you (or is troubling or whatever), might the colloquial term “Home-wrecker” ring a bell?

    Maybe Shalit should not have said “Jack, who strikes me as a sexual predator by the way, ….” (close to the exact quote). But if Jack-Ennis were a male-female relationship, we would have no trouble whatever spotting Jack as basically a home-wrecker. Regardless of whether he was male and Ennis female, or the reverse.

    That’s my beef with his character – and why I think Shalit’s review is a valid review. Peace.

    Comment by Calarato — January 10, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - January 10, 2006

  30. #28 I guess we’re in disagreement here, because it would have made a big difference. Jack, and more so Ennis, felt that in order to live somewhat of a normal life, they felt they had to get married. No, they weren’t held at gunpoint, but Ennis’s image of the murdered gay man, and Jack’s death, probably due to a gay bashing, when he apparently started to live more openly, confirmed their fears. If the climate was much more tolerable to gay persons, at least Jack and Ennis would have a chance of happiness together, felt they wouldn’t have to marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus hurt innocent people.

    #29 I have no trouble with the term predator if that even slightly described Jack’s behavior. That term could clearly define gay or straight people, so I have no problem with the term itself. I have no problem with homewrecker used to describe Jack or Ennis, because each are equally responsible for hurting two families, his own and his lovers’.

    You make a good argument regarding Ennis’s sexuality. My guess is that Ennis is gay, at least a Kinsey 5.5 or so. Even before he meets Jack, he is engaged, but clearly not excited about getting married. Maybe it’s because it’s his wife specifically. But even after his divorce, he never attempted to get another girlfriend, and only had one that pursued him. Yes, he was able to perform sexually with his wife, and had two children. But it seemed like he only did so to have more children (which, of course, was also irresponsible). And when that wasn’t going to happen, they stopped having sex, and soon got divorced. The only person that Ennis had a fulfilling emotional and sexual relationship was with a man. And the only person that he cried his guts over was for a man.

    I’m willing to say it’s possible that Ennis was mostly straight, say a Kinsey 1, but Jack was the only person that he was ever emotionally attached to, and the only person he was in love with.

    Comment by Pat — January 11, 2006 @ 9:47 am - January 11, 2006

  31. Hi! Great job on this site! And, thanks again for the info! WordPress rulez!! I like it. Hey, did I tell you about my encounter with and the amazing wonders of vitamins and supplements? I Feel great as never before! 😉 Check these vitamins and supplements Seriously. Any problems? Let nature help.

    Comment by health health — January 26, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - January 26, 2006

  32. Great job on this site. And, thanks again for the info. WordPress rulez.. I like it. Hey, did I tell you about my encounter with and the amazing wonders of vitamins and supplements? I Feel great as never before! 😉 Check these vitamins and supplements Seriously. Any problems? Let nature help.

    Comment by vitamin and mineral — January 26, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - January 26, 2006

  33. Great job on this site. And, thanks again for the info. WordPress rulez.. I like it. Hey, did I tell you about my encounter with and the amazing wonders of vitamins and supplements? I Feel great as never before! 😉 Check it out. Any problems? Let nature help.

    Comment by health and beauty — January 26, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - January 26, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.