First off, I have not viewed either flick so where I'm coming from is a position of reading movie reviewer's synopsis of the two movies.
That said, I know that Brokeback Mtn. has been pulled from some theaters after complaints because of the subject content, which the owners certainly have every right to do. According to the movie writers, Hostel is an extremely violent movie with torture scenes yet the movie theater in Utah that pulled Brokeback Moutain is still running Hostel.
So, gratuitous violence is ok in a movie but two cowboys riding each other is not?
Since I probably won't see either movie, the question could be considered rhetorical, but I just don't understand why it's ok to view torture scenes but not bucking cowboys?

Cowboys? I deleted my original post on this subject because my intended slurs against preachers and sheepherders were taken as slurs against gays, which was not my intent.

I grew up in a time and place where you asked an 8 year old if he wanted to be a cowboy or a sheepherder when he grew up, he would beat you to death with his cap pistol!

The cowboy myth sure won out. Now everybody dresses like cowboys, even sheepherders.

And, responding to your serious post, there does seem to be no limit to how sickening the violence on screen can be and still be acceptable.

Our good Christian "God is in the White House" Prez even finds torture pretty acceptable in real life.

Its real simple any real man would be beaten and tortured to death before he would take it in the arse. So it makes sense that they would rather see torture and violence than two cowboys taking the dirt road. I know that says volumes about SS and the other libs here. Stew! you lurking?

Look at network tv. Violence = OK, nudity or foul language = not OK.

Why do you want to know little elvis? You want to ask me for a date or something?

No. I saw on the Ifish thread that you could not wait to see the movie. It's right up your alley

Well I figured you might want to go with me and try to cop a feel or something. You sure do talk about that stuff alot

If you where the only "woman" left on earth and I could not choose death as an opiton AM I would pick the horse.

We all know those are mutually exclusive with you, Napoleon.

No he only likes stallions.

What I don’t understand is why Americans give a rat’s arse one way or another if another guy wants to pork another guy? Who cares, live and let live.

TK cares. You shouldn't be doing things not officially approved by neocons.

Here's a question.

What is the minimum age acceptable (to you) for someone to seduce another of the same sex?

As for me...the answer is never. Simple, isn't it?

Legally, 18 just as if it were a male seducing a female.

It is good you have an opinion on this matter. Just don’t let your opinion of what you believe is morally right try and dictate what others should believe is morally right. For me personally I see discriminating against homosexuals the same as discriminating against someone for the color of their skin.


Funny how you use the word seduce. The definition of seduce is to draw away from proper duty or conduct: corrupt. Why do these types of threads always take a turn from two consenting adults to an adult and child theme.

Since we are dealing with two consenting adults I would have chosen to ask the question as follows.


What is the minimum age acceptable (to you) for two consenting, same sex adults to have sex together?

I believe that people have a right to privacy and to do whatever gets them off, so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

But personally I see a big difference between two women messing around (nice!) in a movie and two guys messing around. Maybe there should be some sort of special rating to warn people that don't want to see stuff like that.

My reason for starting this thread was an attempt to understand the mind set that a movie with a slasher/torture story line is more acceptable than a movie about a relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex, not whether the two guys' actions are right or wrong. It seems to send a message that it's ok to torture someone as long as you don't 'dirt road' them.

ChuckE ,

Its a no brainer. Would you rather watch the Duke beat the shait out of Bruce Dern in the Cowboys or bend him over a log and give him the Deliverance treatment?


Imagine the Duke delevering lines like this.
" Ok pardner I am taken the dirt road on ya now and you deserved it you low life miserable excuse for a man"

Chuck,

I think KT should have qualified his post that it's a no brainer for those with no brains.

I think movies do an amazing job of capturing and responding to the marketplace of ideas in society. So far, sex and violence have been extremely popular culturally, as measured by box office sales. Hollywood found early on how to reach the least common denominator of society, because that's where the most money is. I think over time is has just devolved to a lower and lower common denominator in line with the country's social values. If Brokeback Mountain does as well at the box office as other films, that will be an indication that movie going Americans aren't too concerned about what kind of sex is in movies, whether homosexual or hetero, just that sex and love stories do sell.

Violence has always sold well, since the beginning of the movie industry. Generally the most violent movies don't sell as well, depending on context. Hostel sounds more like gratuitous violence and isn't likely to rank up there with the extremely violent, but kind of documentary Saving Private Ryan.

If theaters dump Brokeback and show Hostel, I suspect it's just a local reaction to local squeaky wheels. I doubt the theaters really care; for them it's all about selling overpriced popcorn, etc.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.