Brokeback Mountain

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:14 am

mrsK wrote: I am so sorry I have to bring this topic back to the top.

I am not sure if you know of a drink called C-ck S-cking Cowboys,in over /down here they are a pretty common drink & are asked for by the younger drinkers.

Had to laugh today at work as I was informed they are now called

"Heath Ledgers" apparently thats what the young ones order now.At least I won't look bemused when I am asked for a "Heath Ledger".

Pretty damn sad as I loved him in " Knight's Tale" easy on the eye;)

Heath Ledger...he was only acting....hope you're not put off.

I watched a play with Nigel Havers playing the part of a gay guy. Now this was many years ago, and I'm more tolerant now, but at the time, there was a big kissing scene, and i went right off him....couldn't forget it for years....silly mare...HE WAS ONLY ACTING !!!

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:23 am

mrsK wrote: If I have upset anyone in any way about my comments about the "CSC" drinks now being called Heath Ledgers,I would like to apologise.

You can be very sure I did not mean any harm,after all in the club where I work we get asked for them all the time.

I didn't even think about there being children on this forum & for that I also am sorry.

No upset here...made me giggle

The note about children ....I wouldn't have been particularly 'kiddie' aware either to be honest.....not to worry...we live and learn .

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:16 am

Broken Backside Mounting :yh_giggle

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:41 am

Accountable wrote: Broken Backside Mounting :yh_giggle

Read what you wrote backwards Acc.:sneaky:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:55 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Read what you wrote backwards Acc.:sneaky:
Who's Nekorb?

:wah:

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:54 pm

Accountable wrote: Who's Nekorb?

:wah:

NO:rolleyes:

Broken Backside Mounting :yh_giggle

Mounting Backside Broken :p

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:19 am

Haha! Made you do it! :yh_loser :yh_tong2

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:40 am

Accountable wrote: Haha! Made you do it! :yh_loser :yh_tong2

......................................:-3 - made me do what?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:59 am

Willie Nelson Releases Decades-Old Gay Cowboy Song

POSTED: 7:00 am EST February 15, 2006

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Country music outlaw Willie Nelson released a very different sort of cowboy anthem on Valentine's Day.

Nelson, who has been singing about cowboys for more than 25 years, has released what may be the first gay cowboy song by a major recording artist.

It's called "Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" and may be the first gay cowboy song by a major recording artist. But it was written long before this year's Oscar-nominated "Brokeback Mountain" made gay cowboys a hot topic.

Thanks to Ang Lee, and the passage of 25 years, Ned Sublette's song has finally ended up where he always wanted it to be -- coming out of Nelson's mouth.

"Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" sounds just like a "regular" Willie Nelson song, except for lyrics like: "Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out." It song features choppy Tex-Mex style guitar runs and Nelson's deadpan delivery of lines, including: "What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?"

The song was written by Texas-born singer-songwriter Sublette in 1981, 25 years before this year's Oscar-nominated "Brokeback Mountain" made gay cowboys topical. Sublette said he wrote the song during the "Urban Cowboy" craze and always imagined Nelson singing it.

Nelson sings "He Was a Friend of Mine" on the "Brokeback Mountain" soundtrack. Nelson recorded "Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" last year during an iTunes Originals session in his Texas studio. The song is available on iTunes.

Yavanna · Post by **Yavanna** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:05 am

LMAO!

Yet another attack on the moral righteousness of men who wear leather trousers and castrate bulls for a living! Disgraceful

That was as joke, btw.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:05 am

:yh_rotfl Paul Harvey talked about that this morning.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:58 pm

lady cop wrote: Willie Nelson Releases Decades-Old Gay Cowboy Song

POSTED: 7:00 am EST February 15, 2006

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Country music outlaw Willie Nelson released a very different sort of cowboy anthem on Valentine's Day.

Nelson, who has been singing about cowboys for more than 25 years, has released what may be the first gay cowboy song by a major recording artist.

It's called "Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" and may be the first gay cowboy song by a major recording artist. But it was written long before this year's Oscar-nominated "Brokeback Mountain" made gay cowboys a hot topic.

Thanks to Ang Lee, and the passage of 25 years, Ned Sublette's song has finally ended up where he always wanted it to be -- coming out of Nelson's mouth.

"Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" sounds just like a "regular" Willie Nelson song, except for lyrics like: "Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out." It song features choppy Tex-Mex style guitar runs and Nelson's deadpan delivery of lines, including: "What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?"

The song was written by Texas-born singer-songwriter Sublette in 1981, 25 years before this year's Oscar-nominated "Brokeback Mountain" made gay cowboys topical. Sublette said he wrote the song during the "Urban Cowboy" craze and always imagined Nelson singing it.

Nelson sings "He Was a Friend of Mine" on the "Brokeback Mountain" soundtrack. Nelson recorded "Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other)" last year during an iTunes Originals session in his Texas studio. The song is available on iTunes.

How very interesting............. I'd like to hear the whole song.....just for a chuckle.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:05 pm

A local radio station played it today. They didn't realize that it contained some 'questionable' language and had to pull it early.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:17 pm

The Good, the Bad, and the Pup Tent By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, Feb 16, 2006 One of my favorite western movies ever is "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," a sprawling three hour Sergio Leone shoot-'em-up where Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach star as weapons of mass destruction. I like this film because it's easy to understand: Three macho guys are looking for gold and you better not get in their way, pardner.

The old American west was a place where men were men, and women were, well, in short supply. I mean, covering thousands of miles in a dusty covered wagon wasn't exactly an enchanting experience for the ladies. Don't even ask about the plumbing.

But the new American west is a bit different, at least according to the new widely praised film "Brokeback Mountain." I haven't seen the movie because the lead actors play bisexual shepherds and, please forgive me, that isn't on top of my viewing wish list. I understand I'm a barbarian.

According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.

I also believe "Brokeback Mountain" will win the Oscar next month for Best Picture of the Year. I could be wrong, as left-wing bomb thrower George Clooney is very popular in Hollywood, and his movie about Ed Murrow might prevail. But it looks to me like Academy Award voters will throw Clooney the Best Supporting Actor award, opening the tent flap for "Brokeback" to win it all.

These days, Hollywood considers itself not only a place of entertainment, but also a cultural trendsetter. There is no question that many showbiz types would like to banish any societal stigma associated with homosexuality. Thus, a mainstream movie that portrays gay conduct as nuanced and complicated, as "Brokeback" reportedly does, contributes to a more broadminded approach to homosexuality--a more accepting view.

So that's what's in play this year at the Academy Awards--a social and political statement. And that's why Star Wars and Harry Potter and Narnia, the three largest grossing movies of the year, are not in the best picture running. Spectacular movies often make tons of money, but they do not advance any cause. Gone are the days when "Gone With the Wind"-type entertainment ruled the Hollywood day.

So how should we process the current Hollywood award process? Well, I don't have a problem with it. Certainly, it is wrong that some gay Americans, especially teenagers, are made to suffer because of their predilections. Every American should be able to pursue happiness on an equal basis, including gays.

But I also think the entertainment industry should be up front in explaining what films it values and why it finds them especially worthy. Most Americans are not gonna see "Brokeback Mountain" because they don't relate to the subject, and if Hollywood is now in the "culture-shaping business," it should admit it.

So look for Oscar night to be a huge night for shepherds who roam the range in their own consensual way. Hollywood is making a statement and Americans should be geting the message loud and clear.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:00 pm

Quote Acc: According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.

***********************************

I don't see the three responding with gunfire. I see them all doing a looooooong steady stare and then moving on, together..............

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:45 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: Quote Acc: According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.

***********************************

I don't see the three responding with gunfire. I see them all doing a looooooong steady stare and then moving on, together..............hand in hand?

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:54 pm

Accountable wrote: hand in hand?

Sure ACC.......... and fighting to be the one in the middle! :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:04 am

Far Rider wrote: Drawn and quartered comes to mind, left to the wolves after....... why waste rounds?:rolleyes:

This song make perfect sense coming from Wille... I always wondered about the girl ponytail he wears.:-3

:-2 - What do you wonder Far......how nice it would be to run your fingers through it? I can just see it now when you ask him to let his hair down:rolleyes:

(click this)

http://www.terrificmusic.com/files/musi ... _smith.ram

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:26 am

California (AP) -- Tom Gregory just spent more than $100,000 on two used cowboy shirts. And he couldn't be happier.

The shirts are the ones worn by the ill-fated lovers, played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, in Oscar front-runner "Brokeback Mountain." The shirts that represent their relationship. The shirts that, to Gregory, represent the ongoing plight of gays for acceptance in society.

"They really are the ruby slippers of our time," said Gregory, 45.

A longtime gay activist, Gregory plans to keep the shirts "as they were, on the hanger, entwined."

"I would never wear them, put them on, or separate them," he said.

Gregory collects signed celebrity photos from Hollywood's golden age, but this is his first foray into movie props. Focus Features, distributor of "Brokeback Mountain," donated the two shirts, which were sold on the auction Web site ebay.com to benefit Variety -- The Children's Charity of Southern California.

Yavanna · Post by **Yavanna** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:04 pm

Accountable wrote: Most Americans are not gonna see "Brokeback Mountain" because they don't relate to the subject.

But they do relate to a film about a boy wizard with a big wand and a pet owl? Or Clint Eastwood blowing away several hundred people in a ridiculous pastiche of so-called masculinity? Okie dokie.

The Hollywood movies have always been cultural trendsetters ; what's new about that? The trends Hollywood has set so far (huge, sweeping generalisation coming up) have been those acceptable to whitebread, Christian middle-America (with an extra helping of bias towards viewers under 20).

Now there are a few films coming through which challenge those saccarine worldviews (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, recently) - so what? Isn't about time? The rest of the world has been watching challenging, morally complex films for the last hundred years and actually finding their brain cells haven't died off or their families fallen into a moral vacuum.

Those who prefer their entertainment Disneyfied don't have to go and watch films which challenge their views. They can just continue going to see Final Destination ad infinitum and Monogamous Wedded Bliss of the Penguins. Enough blood, gore, and hetero monogamy there to keep ya happy, surely?

I'd just rather see a film which recognises the complexity of people, that's all. Perhaps some brave soul will make a film about lesbian cops next, or something?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:54 pm

Yavanna wrote: But they do relate to a film about a boy wizard with a big wand and a pet owl? Or Clint Eastwood blowing away several hundred people in a ridiculous pastiche of so-called masculinity? Okie dokie.
Absolutely!! Especially the wizard part. Who wouldn't want to have that kind of power, especially as a kid? It's a fantasy.

Far fewer people fantasize about having a homosexual adulterous relationship out on the range, no matter how complex.

I mean, if you want to spend your hard-earned money to watch 2 married guys - sorry, 2 complex married guys - pork each other, knock yourself out.

Slade1 · Post by **Slade1** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:56 pm

Yavanna wrote: But they do relate to a film about a boy wizard with a big wand and a pet owl? Or Clint Eastwood blowing away several hundred people in a ridiculous pastiche of so-called masculinity? Okie dokie.

The Hollywood movies have always been cultural trendsetters ; what's new about that? The trends Hollywood has set so far (huge, sweeping generalisation coming up) have been those acceptable to whitebread, Christian middle-America (with an extra helping of bias towards viewers under 20).

Now there are a few films coming through which challenge those saccarine worldviews (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, recently) - so what? Isn't about time? The rest of the world has been watching challenging, morally complex films for the last hundred years and actually finding their brain cells haven't died off or their families fallen into a moral vacuum.

Those who prefer their entertainment Disneyfied don't have to go and watch films which challenge their views. They can just continue going to see Final Destination ad infinitum and Monogamous Wedded Bliss of the Penguins. Enough blood, gore, and hetero monogamy there to keep ya happy, surely?

I'd just rather see a film which recognises the complexity of people, that's all. Perhaps some brave soul will make a film about lesbian cops next, or something?

They have films like that every night on 'the Adult Channel', don't they? I wonder how many of the male objectors to 'Brokeback Mountain' would object to a Lesbian cop film that starred two Hollywood A-listers and contained sexual scenes?

stewartcumming · Post by **stewartcumming** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:59 pm

Slade1 wrote: They have films like that every night on 'the Adult Channel', don't they? I wonder how many of the male objectors to 'Brokeback Mountain' would object to a Lesbian cop film that starred two Hollywood A-listers and contained sexual scenes?

Not many. Lesbianism is always ok with male objectors to gay culture (as long as the lesbians are a) beautiful and b) keen on inviting men to join in)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:04 pm

Ah, but those movies are never put forth as a wholesome or fulfilling way of life.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:04 pm

stewartcumming wrote: Not many. Lesbianism is always ok with male objectors to gay culture (as long as the lesbians are a) beautiful and b) keen on inviting men to join in)

AND THE NEWBIE GETS IT IN ONE!!

NAIL ON THE HEAD I'M TALKIN'!!

WAY TO GO!!

:yh_clap

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:05 pm

Slade1 wrote: They have films like that every night on 'the Adult Channel', don't they? I wonder how many of the male objectors to 'Brokeback Mountain' would object to a Lesbian cop film that starred two Hollywood A-listers and contained sexual scenes?
Put the lesbians in a similar situation - on the big screen, married with children, then having an adulterous relationship with each other. Damn right I'd object.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:07 pm

valerie wrote: AND THE NEWBIE GETS IT IN ONE!!

NAIL ON THE HEAD I'M TALKIN'!!

WAY TO GO!!

:yh_clap
Hey that's right.

Welcome Stewart. Nice start! Strong, big splash, without insulting or attacking. Well done!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:08 pm

Yavanna wrote: have been those acceptable to whitebread, Christian middle-America
You forgot "male."

stewartcumming · Post by **stewartcumming** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:08 pm

valerie wrote: AND THE NEWBIE GETS IT IN ONE!!

NAIL ON THE HEAD I'M TALKIN'!!

WAY TO GO!!

:yh_clap

Thanks.

I think?

!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:12 pm

stewartcumming wrote: Thanks.

I think?

!
Oh, she's serious! And I agree with you, too!! Welcome to FG, and that was quite an entrance! My husband is living proof that you're right.

stewartcumming · Post by **stewartcumming** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:15 pm

BabyRider wrote: Oh, she's serious! And I agree with you, too!! Welcome to FG, and that was quite an entrance! My husband is living proof that you're right.

Always nice to feel welcome!

Men are titillated by lesbian sex but threatened by gay sex.

Most men.

Not sure why, perhaps something along the lines of "he's gay, he fancies men, I'm a man, he must fancy me"?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:20 pm

What about the adultery in the film? Irrelevant?

stewartcumming · Post by **stewartcumming** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:23 pm

Accountable wrote: What about the adultery in the film? Irrelevant?

No, but thats not why so many people are making a fuss about it.

And the point of the film is that the two men know they are right for each other, but because of their own inability to accept who they really are they are unable to be together.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:28 pm

stewartcumming wrote: No, but thats not why so many people are making a fuss about it.

And the point of the film is that the two men know they are right for each other, but because of their own inability to accept who they really are they are unable to be together.
And it's far more important to have sex with the man you love than keep faith with your wife and family. I got it.

If these guys had not been homosexual, the movie would have remained on the cutting room floor.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:33 pm

Accountable wrote: And it's far more important to have sex with the man you love than keep faith with your wife and family. I got it.

If these guys had not been homosexual, the movie would have remained on the cutting room floor.

I think you might be right on that one.

And it's interesting that people do refer to them as homosexual, and not

bi. Sort of lump them all in together?

They shouldn't have gotten/stayed married.

:D

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:35 pm

valerie wrote: I think you might be right on that one.

And it's interesting that people do refer to them as homosexual, and not

bi. Sort of lump them all in together?

They shouldn't have gotten/stayed married.

:D
But since they have kids, they need to honor their commitments, rather than their lusts.

My God, I've become an old fart.

stewartcumming · Post by **stewartcumming** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm

valerie wrote: I think you might be right on that one.

And it's interesting that people do refer to them as homosexual, and not

bi. Sort of lump them all in together?

They shouldn't have gotten/stayed married.

:D

They should have got together in the first place and not spent their lives lying to other people and themselves.

Gay men who have sex with women cos they dont want to be gay aren't bi.

If you are bi you form attachments to people because you are attracted to them, regardless of whether they have boobs or a willy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:48 pm

stewartcumming wrote: They should have got together in the first place and not spent their lives lying to other people and themselves.

Gay men who have sex with women cos they dont want to be gay aren't bi.

If you are bi you form attachments to people because you are attracted to them, regardless of whether they have boobs or a willy
Humans who procreate under contract of marriage have obligations that transcend who makes them horny.

Slade1 · Post by **Slade1** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:51 pm

Accountable wrote: But since they have kids, they need to honor their commitments, rather than their lusts.

My God, I've become an old fart.

The thing is there have been loads of films that are based on 'straight' adultery, Dr Zhivago for example is seen as a cinematic masterpiece, but I don't see any threads on here that object to these (true, I haven't looked but I am assuming). I think the film addresses a valid issue, more so in the past than now, that gay men were not accepted and got married because it was seen as the norm and they would have been ostracized from society if they didn't comply with the norm.

There is the issue of the Wives and children being hurt by what happens, but surely the human drama is what makes an interesting film & gives us all something to talk about, which is what art is about, isn't it? Or should we just be going to watch films where everyone lives in a perfect family unit and are all blissfully happy with their lovely lives?