#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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

#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.

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.