Candy said on...
Or, he had “me.”
Stupid incoherent brain.
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 08:35 PM
And Meljean has constructed rock-solid arguments on why this is so.
Please. Read her article. It will open your eyes--and heal your gout, too, should you be gouty, that is.
Eton! You were completely right about that one, and I missed adding it. Funny thing is, aside from TOP GUN the reason I was thinking of this was the talk of a boys’ school in Kleypas’s SUDDENLY YOU. Only torture going on there, but I couldn’t help but think of the other stories that come out of those schools. Heh. Totally DEAD POET’S SOCIETY.
I’m just going to keep doing my Paula Abdul shriek because I agree but have nothing clever to add. “Yes, yes, yes!”
“Oh Yes, Yes Yes!” I screamed like Meg Ryan in a diner.
Backw hen I was a Erudite Graduate Student (as opposed to now when I am an erudite bitch-on-wheels) I had a marvelous time in Feminist Theory class applying Eve Sedgewick’s erotic triangle to any number of popular movies, novels, and plays. The barebones idea behind the triangle is that two men are unable to express their desires for one another, so they do so through use of the same woman. One may be close friends with her while the other dates her, but best-case-scenario, she’s one dude’s Ex when the other falls for her. She isn’t a sexual object in herself so much as she is a conduit for each man to express their desires for the other.
Because heterosexuality and patriarchy can’t be sustained without women, the use and possession of women defines masculinity. Thus, a man fighting for the possession of a woman against another, male or female, redefines and reestablishes his masculinity through his attempts at possession. It’s all about affirming heterosexuality, patriarchy, and allowing subtext of homosocial behavior to continue beneath the established patterns of heterosexuality.
So in short, yeah, the heros? The ones with male clubs and close male friends who go riding and hunting and go to gaming establishments? The ones that go a-hunting for hookers together? They are gay! ALL gay!
Also, bravo MelJean!! Awesome post.
Well, looking through all of the ‘covers gone wild’, seems as though we shoulda realized this sooner… Those vikings? Total poofsters.
ONLY the vikings? Dude, have you seen the cowboy we made fun of? Chaps! Leather vest with nothing underneath! A chest so clean-shaven, it’s shiny! And he’s brandishing a huge motherfucking FLAMING BRAND.
And don’t forget that Sim Under the Sea. He looks totally disinterested in the wench breaking her own neck for his attention. He’s not even looking at her. Maybe he’s got designs on that phallus in the background
It’s like the Romance Novel Cover equivalent to the Village People? There’s the cop, the Indian, the cowboy.....
And I’m so glad I’m not the only person alive who thinks Top Gun is homoerotic! That volleyball scene gets me every single time.
And off on a different tangent: Ever notice how Anthony Edwards is the only guy who is wearing a shirt in that scene? While Tom and Val are shirtless, buff and glistening? ;-P
yes, but Tom and Val looked so delicious without their shirts. So really, where’s the problem ;)
Hubby calls that “a completely superfluous scene that exists for women and gay men.”
I said, “The volleyball didn’t do it for you?”
Hubby said, “Ah, no.”
04.20.05 at 10:20 PM |