Larry David, you're my hero. [ /schmoop]

[saifai]

Larry David, the co-creator and writer of Seinfeld, said about Brokeback Mountain:

"Who's to say I won't become enamored with the whole gay business?  Let's face it, there is some apppeal there.  I know I've always gottten along great with men.  ... And gay guys always seem like they're having a great time.  At the Christmas party I went to, they were the only ones who sang.  Boy that looked like fun.  I would love to sing, but this weighty self-conscious heterosexuality I'm saddled with won't permit it.  I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day.  'You like those cowboys, don't you?  They're kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they're cute.  You can't fool me, gay man.  Go  ahead, stop fighting it.  You're gay!  You're gay!' Not that there's anything wrong with it."

::giggles::  Kind of a sore piont for me since his mock view mirrors my hubby's.  At this point I'm going to have to see the film all by myself.  *pouts*

Comments

[fantomeq.livejournal.com]

LOL, that's a great quote. I want to see it, but the damn theatres can't be bothered to show it. If you find somewhere that is, let me know!

[saifai.livejournal.com]

Damn. I hadn't even realize nobody here was playing it. How cruel is that? *sulks*

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

That's funny. Did you see Nathan Lane's Brokeback Gay Musical on Jay Leno a few weeks ago? It was fabo. Just hilarious.

[saifai.livejournal.com]

Damn, I missed it. Sounds hilarious though!

[fantomeq.livejournal.com]

I kept hoping that little artsy theatre would, but they aren't. :(

[saifai.livejournal.com]

Bah. Well I got a search set, so if it should turn up somewhere I'll know. *crosses fingers*

[http://users.livejournal.com/indiana_jane_/]

*giggles* That's hilarious, thanks for sharing!

Larry David's NY Times Commentary

[(Anonymous)]

Men are very simple creatures, much less complicated than women. We are on the level of dogs mostly, especially when it comes to sex (no pun intended.) And I think it is a biological imperative that causes the confusion. If you think of humans as animals you realize that the females are interested in incorporating sex as a mechanism that insures the welfare of their offspring. For males, sex is like hunger and thirst--something they have to do to satisfy the urging. We totally separate sex and romance. A man can have sex with a person that he hates and despises, and enjoy it, and keep coming back for more, and never get emotionally involved. He sees nothing illogical or wrong with this. However, he knows he cannot admit this to the object of his affections because she might take offence and he doesn't want to screw that up. It is this slot that men put sex with another man. A straight man might, say, go away for a week to a convention (in the days before aids anyway,) feel the urge to orgasm and do it with another man (under many different scenarios and that is a whole 'nother topic,) but he would never think of incorporating romance into the sexual encounter. The advent of HIV changed things and he could now establish a regular relationship with another man, say, on his night out with the boys, that results in weekly sex with that man. He doesn't see himself as gay, it is merely variety in his sexual life as opposed to his emotional life. The two men trust each other not to do anything dangerous, like get AIDS--and both have wives and children. So what men find unbelievable about Brokeback Mountain is the romance. And they really can't identify with it. If both guys in the movie were, for example, married, but not necessarily so, and had monthly outings where they had sex with each other without the romance, it would be much more believable since it reflects more typical male behavior. I don't know a lot about lesbians in comparison, but they seem to value the emotional bond more than the sexual one. For 99% of men that situation does not apply; there is only the sexual relief that a male partner provides.
Of course, all this is highly secret and is rarely discussed among men. The closest they come, if two men are regularly having sex, is to reassure each other that they are not gay, for the simple reason that both not only enjoy sex with their respective spouses, but would prefer to be having sex with several different females if they could get away with it. This to them is eminently logical and they eschew the label bisexual because, in general, they find males unalluring--but I do have some conflicting data on this latter situation. In prisons and in war, both adolescent boys and girls seem to be at a premium and eagerly sought after. Within my personal experiences I found something that disturbed me at the time, but later on I came to understand. In Viet Nam children of 10-15 were frequently recruited as sexual partners for the military, a common thing in all wars, and the prettiest, male or female, were the most in demand (and there are 'nother few thousand words on that.) But when the opportunity to be rescued from that situation presented itself to the kids, most of the girls took advantage of it and went with the nuns. A few of the boys did, but most preferred to stay with the GI's and continue in their relationships. I didn't understand it at the time, but I do now. Years of research have enabled me to look at it from the boys' point of view instead of as an outraged father of two little girls.
Mike

Re: Larry David's NY Times Commentary

[saifai.livejournal.com]

I can see your point. I can certainly see how you came to your viewpoint...

...as a straight man.

I certainly learned new things about military history.

Heck, I even agree with you, but only to an extent (thought admittedly my explanation may be a bit less tactful and involve expletives and the use of the word PIG).

I'm not really much of a debater, but there's just one thing I think that begs the question. What about the gay men?

Like I said, I see your point. But I'm wondering if that perspective might not bunch people together into one form-fitting mold. Assumptions and generalizations are made that might not necessarily be true.

Regarding the movie specifically, I would make propose an alternative that perhaps these men are gay. In times like those, your biological imperitive was boiled down to producing offspring. You got married, you had kids, and you worked hard for everything you had. As you can imagine, a society like that would be very restrictive for someone forced to live a restrictive life according to social conformaties.

I can only imagine a life like that would be almost unbearably difficult.

My only other question is deals with love. I'm sure you saw it coming considering I am of course of the female persuasion.

A straight man can love his wife, and yet have sex with a man and not feel love. He can even have sex with the woman he loves and feel all the more strongly towards her for it.

Why can't a gay man do the same? What if the person he loves is in fact male? He can love his... partner, and still have sex with him according to your theories.

Just a thought.