March 20th, 2009, 07:13 AM
I can't help but wonder why in the three films the Hobbits absolutely oozed gayness... why also was that Golem before he begun his nasty spell (and just during in finding the ring for the firt time) did i have the impression the person he was with was his gay partner?
Is there any literal reference in the books to this ''gay factor'' i seem to get from the movies? I can't be arsed reading the book, its far too long, so hopefully someone here can give some insight into this.
March 20th, 2009, 08:29 AM
Perception is a personal thing.Originally Posted by Manynames
There is no explicit reference and the only implicit reference is that there are very few female characters. That's my view.Is there any literal reference in the books to this ''gay factor'' i seem to get from the movies?
For an opposing view see this essay:
http://www.articlearchives.com/human...1003700-1.html
Too long? I've read it twenty six times. What's your problem.I can't be arsed reading the book, its far too long
March 20th, 2009, 08:58 AM
Perception is a personal thing.Perception is a personal thing.
There is no explicit reference and the only implicit reference is that there are very few female characters. That's my view.Is there any literal reference in the books to this ''gay factor'' i seem to get from the movies?
For an opposing view see this essay:
http://www.articlearchives.com/human...1003700-1.html
Too long? I've read it twenty six times. What's your problem.I can't be arsed reading the book, its far too long
I know... i just can't help but feel that when i watched the movies. The Golem even called his friend ''his love''. He also wanted the ring as a birthday present, which also made me feel there might have been more to it.
For an opposing view see this essay:
http://www.articlearchives.com/human...1003700-1.html
Thanks.
Too long? I've read it twenty six times. What's your problem
Not only is it an increadibly long book, it is also, from my opinion, a very badly written one. But that's just my point. I had to read the Bible more than seven times in order to understand it, and i wouldn't put myself through that because now i simply would not have the time.
March 20th, 2009, 09:03 AM
I;ve just read the link, and i think i agree with it. I am very good at picking up the ''gay-vibes'' simply because i am gay myself, and it seems my suspicion of it was not in vain.Perception is a personal thing.Perception is a personal thing.
There is no explicit reference and the only implicit reference is that there are very few female characters. That's my view.Is there any literal reference in the books to this ''gay factor'' i seem to get from the movies?
For an opposing view see this essay:
http://www.articlearchives.com/human...1003700-1.html
Too long? I've read it twenty six times. What's your problem.I can't be arsed reading the book, its far too long
I know... i just can't help but feel that when i watched the movies. The Golem even called his friend ''his love''. He also wanted the ring as a birthday present, which also made me feel there might have been more to it.
For an opposing view see this essay:
http://www.articlearchives.com/human...1003700-1.html
Thanks.
Too long? I've read it twenty six times. What's your problem
Not only is it an increadibly long book, it is also, from my opinion, a very badly written one. But that's just my point. I had to read the Bible more than seven times in order to understand it, and i wouldn't put myself through that because now i simply would not have the time.
There are definite elements of homoeroticism, however that doesn't make it overtly gay.
It's more of a statement about non-sexual love. At no point is the relationship between Sam and Frodo overtly gay. Then Tolkien of course brings the matter to a close at the end by getting Sam married.
I don't think Tolkien himself would have deliberately intended gay innuendo in his story, it just happens to be there.
Now the Little Mermaid is overtly gay.
I read it in Middle School and definitely got a gay vibe. It didn't particularly bother me, but I definitely recognized it. I agree with tiredsleepy, I doubt Tolkien would have put it in there on purpose.
Most likely either: a) Tolkien unconsciously added social mores we find gay but were not gay in there time and place. Like there's a lot of kissing in the New Testament but I don't think any (mainstream) people think Judas was gay for Jesus. Tolkien spent a lot of time in ancient literature, so he probably unconsciously emulated a lot of the social mores he'd read about when he constructed his story.
Or b) Tolkien was secretly gay and his literature was a way to express himself without him realizing it.
Or c) Men in a group put through stress (say in WWII battlefields, or returning a ring to Mordor) adopt a pseudo sexual relationship with each other as a form of bonding. Maybe Tolkien unconsciously recognized this and tapped into it. You definitely see a lot of butt groping in NFL football, for instance. Anywhere else that would be considered pretty overtly gay. Fraternity initiations too, from what I hear, involve a lot of behavior that in almost any other situation would be considered overtly gay.
Bolded by me....There are definite elements of homoeroticism, however that doesn't make it overtly gay.
It's more of a statement about non-sexual love. At no point is the relationship between Sam and Frodo overtly gay. Then Tolkien of course brings the matter to a close at the end by getting Sam married
I don't think Tolkien himself would have deliberately intended gay innuendo in his story, it just happens to be there.
Now the Little Mermaid is overtly gay.
.... Well, that depends. It depends on whether he was gay himself. 8)
Psychologically-speaking, that depends on whether he had gay feelings throughout his life. Not a surprise if he did mind you, since at least 1 in 3 people today are either gay or bisexual.
If you're counting bisexuality I'd say it's more like 80-90%. Most don't act on it, of course, but it's there. I'm sort of a believer in Freud's innate bisexuality hypothesis.
it's an approximation at bext, and if your statistics are right, then there is a very high chance he was.
Though, i strongly disbelieve in ''Alfred Kinsey's '' approach.
You're free to do your own sexuality study. Maybe involving some nubile young coeds. Are just regular eds. Or bothI'm not here to judge.
Actually on a serious note we could really do with an objective scientific study on human sexuality. They Kinsey Reports were a good first step, but its becoming rather dated and maybe the percentages have shifted over the last 50 years.
Well i am gay. I know i have no tendancies to find the female attractive in the sense any other male would drag females, or males, or even both into the bed... so Kinsleys proposal that:You're free to do your own sexuality study. Maybe involving some nubile young coeds. Are just regular eds. Or both
Actually on a serious note we could really do with an objective scientific study on human sexuality. They Kinsey Reports were a good first step, but its becoming rather dated and maybe the percentages have shifted over the last 50 years.
''it is a suggestion that most or all human beings are functionally bisexual to some degree, but may not express that bisexuality as behavior.''
is ultimately flawed. I know this for a fact. It only tells me psychologically and sexually speaking that Kinsley almost certainly was... without a doubt... proclaiming his own bisexuality. In fact, i have known more than one person in life who where biexual to proclaim such a prospect, for me to ultimately tell them... it cannot be true, especially from my case.
Oh my, there are two of us now, it's becoming an epidemic.
Recent studies I've read put the numbers around 1-5% proclaimed homosexuals for males, and 7-10% proclaimed male bisexuals.
It doesn't have to be as overt as that for Freud's innate bisexuality. I would self identify as a heterosexual male, but I can also identify homosexual subcurrents. Not where I'd want to have sex with a man. And not to where I've ever had a "crush" on a man. But more in that early pubescent formless appreciation.
Kinsey only dealt with actions. I am actually rather sexually inactive, and Kinsey would probably have rated me as 100% heterosexual. Which I think is a limitation of his study. But if you consider yourself 100% homosexual, and you've ever been romantically involved with a women, Kinsey would have called that bisexual. Which is also somewhat of a misnomer.
I think the reality is that, when it comes down to it, sex in all forms is strongly pleasurable. We are born with relatively ancient sexual desire but not with the specifics of what we should desire. That's learned before puberty, and then reinforced during puberty. I think everyone would characterize their teenage years as a time of "sexual experimentation". This is the sexual pathways in our brain working themselves out.
Sexual orientation also has a lot to do with gender roles. What I think happens is that our preferred gender role gets mixed up with our sexuality. I think this is where the "feminine gay" and "masculine butch" stereotypes come from. If you're a male and behave in a way that fills a feminine gender role, you'll find it easier to find acceptance and sexual partners in a gay community than a straight community. That's obviously a stereotype, of course, which makes it difficult to base a scientific hypothesis on.
I don't think anyone is born with a sexual desire for vagina. That comes later after our sexual experiences and expected and accepted roles in society reinforce that desire. Being in a rather unique perspective as a virgin myself, I can attest that my "desire" for a women is largely formless. Intellectually I understand the idea of sex, but my body isn't nearly as specific. If women had penises and men had vaginas my sexual orientation wouldn't suddenly flip. Pleasure is pleasure, and is used to reinforce whatever sexual behavior we engage in. We pick a gender role (or it picks us, if you're hostile towards the political ramifications of "choice" and "sexual orientation"), and from that a "should" for sexual attraction, and then actual experience reinforces that decision. Formless desire gets shaped into a specific fetishism for sex.
What specifically about men but not women sexually attracts you? How "masculine" would a women have to be for you to find her sexually attractive. Same works for heterosexual men: how feminine does a man have to be for you to find him sexually attractive. If a heterosexual male is not sexually attracted by a shemale, I'd say that's more because his gender role forbids him from finding men sexually attractive under any circumstances, than it is any real difference. Much of human mating is about the social status we gain or lose by the pairing.
Hmm, my last post doesn't sit well with me but I'm not sure if it's an uncomfortableness with the political correctness (or a lack of it), or if it's something else. So take it with a grain of salt
Bolded by me...It doesn't have to be as overt as that for Freud's innate bisexuality. I would self identify as a heterosexual male, but I can also identify homosexual subcurrents. Not where I'd want to have sex with a man. And not to where I've ever had a "crush" on a man. But more in that early pubescent formless appreciation.
Kinsey only dealt with actions. I am actually rather sexually inactive, and Kinsey would probably have rated me as 100% heterosexual. Which I think is a limitation of his study. But if you consider yourself 100% homosexual, and you've ever been romantically involved with a women, Kinsey would have called that bisexual. Which is also somewhat of a misnomer.
I think the reality is that, when it comes down to it, sex in all forms is strongly pleasurable. We are born with relatively ancient sexual desire but not with the specifics of what we should desire. That's learned before puberty, and then reinforced during puberty. I think everyone would characterize their teenage years as a time of "sexual experimentation". This is the sexual pathways in our brain working themselves out.
Sexual orientation also has a lot to do with gender roles. What I think happens is that our preferred gender role gets mixed up with our sexuality. I think this is where the "feminine gay" and "masculine butch" stereotypes come from. If you're a male and behave in a way that fills a feminine gender role, you'll find it easier to find acceptance and sexual partners in a gay community than a straight community. That's obviously a stereotype, of course, which makes it difficult to base a scientific hypothesis on.
I don't think anyone is born with a sexual desire for vagina. That comes later after our sexual experiences and expected and accepted roles in society reinforce that desire. Being in a rather unique perspective as a virgin myself, I can attest that my "desire" for a women is largely formless. Intellectually I understand the idea of sex, but my body isn't nearly as specific. If women had penises and men had vaginas my sexual orientation wouldn't suddenly flip. Pleasure is pleasure, and is used to reinforce whatever sexual behavior we engage in. We pick a gender role (or it picks us, if you're hostile towards the political ramifications of "choice" and "sexual orientation"), and from that a "should" for sexual attraction, and then actual experience reinforces that decision. Formless desire gets shaped into a specific fetishism for sex.
What specifically about men but not women sexually attracts you? How "masculine" would a women have to be for you to find her sexually attractive. Same works for heterosexual men: how feminine does a man have to be for you to find him sexually attractive. If a heterosexual male is not sexually attracted by a shemale, I'd say that's more because his gender role forbids him from finding men sexually attractive under any circumstances, than it is any real difference. Much of human mating is about the social status we gain or lose by the pairing.
...sorry what? I don't understand this?
When you were an early teenager, like 12 or 13, before your first crush even, and you first start developing sexual attraction, it's "formless". It isn't a desire to "do" anything, it's just a general "appreciation". I don't really have the words to describe it better than that. It's a seed which later develops form as we're taught how to behave and what we're supposed to do. And then those behaviors are reinforced through sexual pleasure (masturbation fantasies, sex, etc.)
It "forms" into a desire for love, or sex, or whatever. But before that it's just a magnitude of feeling without a direction.
I disagree. Your sexual desires according to a theory i cannot remember the name of now, suggests that it is nothing but ''genes'' in the ''need'' to procreate.
When i was younger, i know my genes never found the female attractive, nor was any sexual desire forming. The illusion was that i already had the desire. Now if you mean by ''experimentation'' we seek out what we find attractive and desirable, then perhaps you could understand my disappointment when i tried to hit it with a girl at the age 16... but in no way was anything still developing. I was developed as far as sexual attraction goes... I knew even before trying to hit it off with the woman i did not find any element of it... arousing to say the least. I never did.
So if you are saying when you where younger you certainly had ''mixed'' feelings for both genders, then you may yourself to this day be facing an identification problem of your own sexuality. It is very likely that most bisexuals find one sex more attractive to another, but for those who there is no choice, then there is no comparisson.
It's known that most who have mixed feelings do grow up as bisexuals, but have actually either chosen one desire over another or have grown to find one desire... well... more desirable. I find it very hard to believe in the ''seed'' hypothesis you bring forward. we actually learn from very young ages (when sex becomes important to body) what sexuality we are. We often experiment however, either being blind of knowing that it won't lead to anything, but usually that we often experimenting to see for sure that the body we have is indeed ''wired'' that way in the blood, so-to-say.
Well sure, but those genes are way older than the human race. What we find attractive can't be entirely coded in the genes because animals' appearences change way too rapidly. When we are young we are "imprinted" by our parents, extended family, and community about what we "should" desire.I disagree. Your sexual desires according to a theory i cannot remember the name of now, suggests that it is nothing but ''genes'' in the ''need'' to procreate.
Take for instance family pets. I think everyone has anecdotal evidence that our pets can develop... sexual attraction for us. Or at least for our legs
I don't think this was genes, for reasons I outline above. I think it's imprinted psychology. But your point is taken.When i was younger, i know my genes never found the female attractive, nor was any sexual desire forming.
By "experimentation" I mean we're seeking to find out what it is we find sexually stimulating. We don't just know at 13 when puberty hits what we like. Or I certainly didn't, and I "experimented" with things like self bondage which I don't do anymore and no longer find particularly stimulating. Puberty is a time of massive psychological changes, and the wiring of sexual stimulating is still raw and being written.The illusion was that i already had the desire. Now if you mean by ''experimentation'' we seek out what we find attractive and desirable, then perhaps you could understand my disappointment when i tried to hit it with a girl at the age 16... but in no way was anything still developing. I was developed as far as sexual attraction goes... I knew even before trying to hit it off with the woman i did not find any element of it... arousing to say the least. I never did.
Your account is about not being attracted to women. This is actually not the same thing as being attracted to men. It's not an either/or. You could be asexual, with no latent sexualality. Or zoophilic and find horses arousing. Or fetishistic and be into domination or submission. I think that's the core of society's issues with sexuality. You're either gay, straight, or bisexual. But actual sexuality is extremely varied and not nearly so easily defined. Or on even a linear scale. We're born not only with latent bisexuality, but latent anything sexuality. We're born with the ability to find anything at all sexually arousing, depending on how are brain ends up wiring itself. Usually we're imprinted with an Oedipal complex, where we seek out our parents as sexual partners (ie: I want a girl like mom). This is presumably how mammalian sexuality is set up. But it's hardly a clockwork process and it can result in all sorts of varied sexualities.
There is no identification problem, I understand my sexuality fully. Probably far more so than most people, because I've specifically tried to understand it with an open mind. Actually as a child homosexual attraction was extremely rare. I can probably count on one hand the number of instances I can remember. The vast majority of men never sexually interested me. But there were rare exceptions. As an adult I'd have to say I'm specifically more open to my homosexual side and so am more aware of it, so if anything it's increased.So if you are saying when you where younger you certainly had ''mixed'' feelings for both genders, then you may yourself to this day be facing an identification problem of your own sexuality. It is very likely that most bisexuals find one sex more attractive to another, but for those who there is no choice, then there is no comparisson.
I would say I am 9-10 parts heterosexual to 1 parts homosexual. I greatly prefer the female form, largely because of its foreignness. There's a certain amount of fetishism involved. But this is what I mean by latent bisexuality. I don't mean bisexuality as an equal preference for either gender. I mean it as a non zero sexual attraction to the gender they would not normally consider.
Certainly the broad strokes are set up by the time we enter puberty. It's unlikely that if, at the beginning of puberty, you find men exclusively attractive you'll suddenly switch sexual orientation in your early 20s. But the finer details are still being constructed during the process of puberty. Things like preferred hair color, eyes, body type, personality type, etc. are still somewhat fluid. But by the time we reach our early 20s our exact preferences have largely settled into a static pattern and we're largely familiar with that pattern.It's known that most who have mixed feelings do grow up as bisexuals, but have actually either chosen one desire over another or have grown to find one desire... well... more desirable. I find it very hard to believe in the ''seed'' hypothesis you bring forward. we actually learn from very young ages (when sex becomes important to body) what sexuality we are. We often experiment however, either being blind of knowing that it won't lead to anything, but usually that we often experimenting to see for sure that the body we have is indeed ''wired'' that way in the blood, so-to-say.
Have you had a gay experience? I think you have... am i wrong?Well sure, but those genes are way older than the human race. What we find attractive can't be entirely coded in the genes because animals' appearences change way too rapidly. When we are young we are "imprinted" by our parents, extended family, and community about what we "should" desire.I disagree. Your sexual desires according to a theory i cannot remember the name of now, suggests that it is nothing but ''genes'' in the ''need'' to procreate.
Take for instance family pets. I think everyone has anecdotal evidence that our pets can develop... sexual attraction for us. Or at least for our legs
I don't think this was genes, for reasons I outline above. I think it's imprinted psychology. But your point is taken.When i was younger, i know my genes never found the female attractive, nor was any sexual desire forming.
By "experimentation" I mean we're seeking to find out what it is we find sexually stimulating. We don't just know at 13 when puberty hits what we like. Or I certainly didn't, and I "experimented" with things like self bondage which I don't do anymore and no longer find particularly stimulating. Puberty is a time of massive psychological changes, and the wiring of sexual stimulating is still raw and being written.The illusion was that i already had the desire. Now if you mean by ''experimentation'' we seek out what we find attractive and desirable, then perhaps you could understand my disappointment when i tried to hit it with a girl at the age 16... but in no way was anything still developing. I was developed as far as sexual attraction goes... I knew even before trying to hit it off with the woman i did not find any element of it... arousing to say the least. I never did.
Your account is about not being attracted to women. This is actually not the same thing as being attracted to men. It's not an either/or. You could be asexual, with no latent sexualality. Or zoophilic and find horses arousing. Or fetishistic and be into domination or submission. I think that's the core of society's issues with sexuality. You're either gay, straight, or bisexual. But actual sexuality is extremely varied and not nearly so easily defined. Or on even a linear scale. We're born not only with latent bisexuality, but latent anything sexuality. We're born with the ability to find anything at all sexually arousing, depending on how are brain ends up wiring itself. Usually we're imprinted with an Oedipal complex, where we seek out our parents as sexual partners (ie: I want a girl like mom). This is presumably how mammalian sexuality is set up. But it's hardly a clockwork process and it can result in all sorts of varied sexualities.
There is no identification problem, I understand my sexuality fully. Probably far more so than most people, because I've specifically tried to understand it with an open mind. Actually as a child homosexual attraction was extremely rare. I can probably count on one hand the number of instances I can remember. The vast majority of men never sexually interested me. But there were rare exceptions. As an adult I'd have to say I'm specifically more open to my homosexual side and so am more aware of it, so if anything it's increased.So if you are saying when you where younger you certainly had ''mixed'' feelings for both genders, then you may yourself to this day be facing an identification problem of your own sexuality. It is very likely that most bisexuals find one sex more attractive to another, but for those who there is no choice, then there is no comparisson.
I would say I am 9-10 parts heterosexual to 1 parts homosexual. I greatly prefer the female form, largely because of its foreignness. There's a certain amount of fetishism involved. But this is what I mean by latent bisexuality. I don't mean bisexuality as an equal preference for either gender. I mean it as a non zero sexual attraction to the gender they would not normally consider.
Certainly the broad strokes are set up by the time we enter puberty. It's unlikely that if, at the beginning of puberty, you find men exclusively attractive you'll suddenly switch sexual orientation in your early 20s. But the finer details are still being constructed during the process of puberty. Things like preferred hair color, eyes, body type, personality type, etc. are still somewhat fluid. But by the time we reach our early 20s our exact preferences have largely settled into a static pattern and we're largely familiar with that pattern.It's known that most who have mixed feelings do grow up as bisexuals, but have actually either chosen one desire over another or have grown to find one desire... well... more desirable. I find it very hard to believe in the ''seed'' hypothesis you bring forward. we actually learn from very young ages (when sex becomes important to body) what sexuality we are. We often experiment however, either being blind of knowing that it won't lead to anything, but usually that we often experimenting to see for sure that the body we have is indeed ''wired'' that way in the blood, so-to-say.
No gay experiences. Hardly any straight experiences either (had a girlfriend in highschool but that's about it). I seem to have issues forming romantic relationships...
Awkward...
haha, yeah, It's hard to talk about human sexuality without feeling uncomfortable.
I'm just glad you guys are talking about hobbit sexuality.
Oddly...Gollum reminds me of my first wife:
1)loves raw fish
2) obsessed with rings
3) bat-shit crazy
4) viscious in a fight
5) voted most-likely to fall into a volcano
6) otherwise indescructable
7) likely to live for a very very very long time
8) obsessed with birthdays
9) freakishly skinny
| « The Living Dead, edited by John Joseph Adams | What non fiction books are you reading? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
