Today on Blogcritics
Home » Mark Wahlberg “Creeped Out” By Brokeback Mountain Role

Mark Wahlberg “Creeped Out” By Brokeback Mountain Role

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter1Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Apparently Mark Wahlberg was happy filmmaker Ang Lee passed him over for one of the roles in Academy Award winning film Brokeback Mountain because the idea of playing a gay cowboy "creeped him out."

At some point during the development of the film, he and Joaquin Phoenix were considered for the roles of Jack and Ennis, but Wahlberg felt uncomfortable about gay sex acts in a tent.

Wahlberg says, "I met with Ang Lee on that movie, I read 15 pages of the script and got a little creeped out. It was very graphic, descriptive – the spitting on the hand, getting ready to do the thing. I told Ang Lee, ‘I like you, you’re a talented guy, if you want to talk about it more…’ Thankfully, he didn’t.”

Obviously the parts eventually went to Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal who both received Oscar nominations for the film, and the movie was almost unanimously critically claimed, but Wahlberg says he had no real desire to see the film.

He adds, “I didn’t rush to see Brokeback, it’s just not my deal… Obviously, it was done in taste – look how it was received.”

Now here’s my thing. I can understand a straight man being uncomfortable with the gay sex scenes in the film, but to use the words “creeped out” is almost disgusting. What’s creepy about it? It’s just a sex scene like in any other movie. It’s simulated. It’s not like anyone’s actually asking you to put your penis in anyone’s ass. And considering the fact that he's done some pretty explicit scenes in his day, it’s disappointing to me that he’d have that attitude about the film.

I'm the first person to shoot down gay men who are angry because some straight guy doesn't enjoy watching two men get it on, because why would they? They're straight. And like I said, it makes sense that it would make him uncomfortable or uneasy. But in your last film you shot a man dead. It's easier for you to play that than to play a man who's in love with another man?

Then he has the nerve to say that obviously the movie was well received because the homosexuality was done in taste. Excuse me? So because this is a story about two gay men, the sex needs to be tasteful and classy, yet there’s no problem with the millions of raunchy and explicit heterosexual sex scenes that are out there in movies that have been great films.

I would think Mark would be even more sensitive considering his uncle who he has discussed before. He said,

My uncle was gay and he was a teamster and a truck driver and he was a guy's guy, but he kept this secret his whole life. Imagine how hard that must have been for him. I feel so bad. Every time my dad brings it up, he cries because he loves his brother more than anything. He doesn't care what it was. He was born that way. Acceptance is the key. The only way you're gonna succeed in life and really grow as a human being is through acceptance.

I love Mark, as an actor — and he’s a gorgeous man. But these statements seriously disappoint me. I thought he had outgrown this crap years ago. It's called acting, Mark.  It's all pretend.

Powered by

About Chris Evans

  • http://nukapai.typepad.com Nukapai

    I don’t know. Maybe too much can be read into these things. For an actor to be able to perform well, he or she must be able to truly get into character. I guess this actor in question just faced up to his limitation in range. It doesn’t have to be read as a homophobic stance.

    On the other hand, it could be. Hard to tell from a small sound-bite. These types of things always get quoted out of context and over-analysed.

    I agree about your point regarding acceptance.

    But then here’s an interesting devil’s advocate thought: Can homosexual people ever fully be expected to accept that homosexuality just plain creeps some people out? Without any hatred involved.

    Just like, I imagine, heterosexual acts would creep out homosexuals.

    I really don’t like eating unprocessed red meat. The texture of it makes me gag. If I was an actress and was offered a script where I had to chew on some beef, the thought of it would creep me out. I would not accept such an assignment.

    Would that make me the spokesperson for vegans and the pariah of the meat industry? Hardly.

    The homosexual/heterosexual issues are so overly complicated. It’s a shame we can’t just all be a bit more natural and accept our multi-faceted human nature. I mean truly accept, not PC-accept.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    You make a good point, but the thing is, I don’t believe Mark is homophobic, and I don’t believe his comments were driven by homophobia.

    There’s a big spectrum between Tim Hardaway homophobic and complete acceptance, and I definitely understand that it’s not possible for all straight people to be on either end of the spectrum–especially someone with Wahlberg’s background.

    But the problem I have with your analogy is that Mark was not asked to eat unprocessed raw meat. Just to pretend to.

  • http://www.noface4film.com/ Kaonashi

    I think that Mark picked the wrong phrase, “creeped out”. When people have a somewhat limited vocabulary, they tend to do that. My brother is brilliant in engineeering and math, but he sometimes picks the wrong words. I know what he’s getting at so I tell him, “Do you mean to say…” Unfortunately, no one gets to say that to someone when conducting an interview.

  • http://nukapai.typepad.com Nukapai

    Fair enough, Chris. And I do see the difference.

  • CRP

    What is the matter with the phrase “creeped out”? Can’t someone have an opinion that varies from yours? or do you want everyone to think like you? At least he is honest! Contrary to popular belief it is ok to find homosexual sex disgusting and creepy and still not be a homophobe. why does everyone have to accept or pretend to accept something they don’t care for or believe is right? why is freedom of speech only held for people who speak with political correctness?

  • reggie von woic

    Bad choice of words, that’s all…it could have been much worse, by the way.

    We need to understand his situation-that’s not an easy role for a real straight guy to play; good actor or not.

    i see no problem in “creeped out”

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    “What is the matter with the phrase “creeped out”? Can’t someone have an opinion that varies from yours? or do you want everyone to think like you? At least he is honest! Contrary to popular belief it is ok to find homosexual sex disgusting and creepy and still not be a homophobe. why does everyone have to accept or pretend to accept something they don’t care for or believe is right? why is freedom of speech only held for people who speak with political correctness?”

    You’re acting like people are rioting in the streets over it. Yes, Mark is entitled to his freedom of speech. And when he uses it, others are then entitled to THEIR freedom of speech to respond to what he said if they don’t like it. It has nothing to do with political correctness. The problem is not simply the fact that he said it out loud, but that he even had the opinion in the first place.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    “Bad choice of words, that’s all…it could have been much worse, by the way.

    We need to understand his situation-that’s not an easy role for a real straight guy to play; good actor or not.

    i see no problem in “creeped out””

    Straight actors do it all the time. And vice-versa for gay actors. It might not be easy for them either, but they do it. Why? It’s called acting. I’m sure it wasn’t EASY for Charlize Theron to play an ugly, lesbian, serial killer. But she did it. Why? Acting.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    When Wahlberg was “Marky Mark” he was often accused of being gay, and is indeed homophobic, not for fear of gays but because he’s feared of being called one.

    The reading with Lee went so well that Wahlberg agreed to be on a shortlist and later when his friends found out, he told all of them that he was hoping he wasn’t called back in for a second reading.

    That should tell you something.

    He was obviously impressed with the material and was interested, otherwise he’d have never answered the call to audition in the first place.

    After he was “Creeped out” he would’ve said no to the part, but instead agreed to the short list, and was upset probably only after his friends found out.

    He knew what he was getting into when he went in to it.

  • reggie von woic

    When it comes to acting, there are different levels of difficulty. If you gave a straight man a choice betweeen playing a homosexual (complete with love scenes) and playing a ruthless serial killer who murders innocent blondes, many would pick the killer, while you see both roles simply as acting.

    I personally find eating monkey brains to be a bit creepy….not so for some people in Asia.

  • http://www.noface4film.com/ Kaonashi

    “But in your last film you shot a man dead. It’s easier for you to play that than to play a man who’s in love with another man?”

    Actors are all types of people. Some are willing to do anything for the role. Actresses like Demi Moore and Natalie Portman shaved their heads for their roles. Other actors go through severely drastic weight changes. Others are willing to play gay or straight roles and engage in love scenes or kiss someone they normally wouldn’t do those actions with. But there are actors who have limits, like Mark.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    “Actors are all types of people. Some are willing to do anything for the role. Actresses like Demi Moore and Natalie Portman shaved their heads for their roles. Other actors go through severely drastic weight changes. Others are willing to play gay or straight roles and engage in love scenes or kiss someone they normally wouldn’t do those actions with. But there are actors who have limits, like Mark.”

    And I now know his. Sad.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    “When it comes to acting, there are different levels of difficulty. If you gave a straight man a choice betweeen playing a homosexual (complete with love scenes) and playing a ruthless serial killer who murders innocent blondes, many would pick the killer, while you see both roles simply as acting.

    I personally find eating monkey brains to be a bit creepy….not so for some people in Asia.”

    So now we’re comparing eating monkey brains to a few minutes of fake gay sex?

  • http://www.noface4film.com/ Kaonashi

    I wonder if Rupert Everett is “creeped out” every time he plays a straight man and has to kiss a woman?

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    “I wonder if Rupert Everett is “creeped out” every time he plays a straight man and has to kiss a woman?”

    I’m sure he doesn’t like it, as he shouldn’t. But I doubt it “creeps” him out, and I doubt he thinks straight love scenes need to be done with taste. He probably doesn’t go around whining about it like straight actors do either (*cough* Jake Gyllenhaal *cough*)

  • http://www.noface4film.com/ Kaonashi

    But I doubt it “creeps” him out

    Precisely. He wouldn’t complain about such a thing. It’s just a job to him. Like I said, some actors have their limits, and some handle uncomfortable roles better than others.

  • sandra

    I agree that the comments sound a little too harsh. But, I don’t think “Marky Mark” is a homophobe. In the early 90s, if I remember, he was an idol to the gay community.

  • Buster

    “He adds, ‘I didn’t rush to see Brokeback, it’s just not my deal…'”

    So I guess this also means that Wahlberg voted in that years’ SAG awards without having seen all the nominated films. This is a disgusting trend that needs to be addressed by all organizations that bestow film awards.

    Has AMPAS or SAG or any other such group said one official word about this, whether about Jack Nicholson voting for Brokeback Mountain without having seen it, or Ernest Borgnine refusing to see it, or Sarah Jessica Parker asking her pre-schooler’s advice about her Oscar ballot (and who’d expexct SJP to be an AMPAS member anyway?)

  • Red

    Well, Mark Wahlberg couldn’t give justice to the role played by Heath and Jake. Heath and Jake’s still the BEST and RIGHT actors for this movie. Mark, As an article I read a few years ago, “Homosexuals are hated by men primarily the rugged he-man type fears the homosexuality within himself”.

  • Julie

    Hey, don’t criticize Mark for “using the wrong words” or declining the part. There’s nothing wrong with being creeped out or disgusted with homosexuality. It’s not natural. And it doesn’t mean Mark is a latent homosexual. Give me a break. He just likes women. Hey, if you can get in touch with him, give him my e-mail. He’s hot and I’m totally into him..Can you tell? Don’t criticize my man!!!! I love you Markie-Mark!!! I’ve heard you don’t like that name, but it’s just something you did in the past, it’s not who you are. You are hot. I’d like to meet you if you ever brea
    k up with your girlfriend. God bless.

  • http://jatgab.blogspot.com Bill Samuels

    I think one comment here was especially perceptive: homophobia isn’t just about hating gays, it’s also a fear that you are — or are perceived — as being gay. Wahlberg may be homophobic in that sense if not in the former. I can understand him being a little uncomfortable with gay love scenes, but his comments were unfortunate. I’ve noticed in some straight men that “gay-friendliness” comes and goes according to the situation and to whose company they’re in.

  • Juan Carlos

    Mark has the right to express himself freely and to the choices he accepts to portray in film roles as an actor. However, I always find it kind of “creepy” when my married “heterosexual” friends come onto me, to add they want to “only and simply experience what it feels like…” I always decline! The old adage “curiousity kills the cat…” comes to mind, and therefore, I remain friends with these “dudes.” Yet, in my course of study and profession as a social worker, I still wonder if Mark was one of the only 5 to 10% of males that have given thought to “never” engage in same-sex relations -remember my stats to the only “thought” of doing so. Otherwise, Mark is a fine actor in whatever he chooses to portay himself in films. Enough said.

  • julian clark

    i think it’s a little pathetic that brokeback mountain is all of a sudden a gay mans movie. just because its a film about 2 men who are in love with each other doesn’t mean that the movie is only set to homosexual people.

    i thought it was a great and moving movie and as a straight man i apperciate the POINT of the movie and not so much the fact that they were, as some would say “fag cowboys”

    but back to the point. he needed to keep his manliness tied down. he probably figured that if he did do the role. the national enquire
    would print up an article the next morning

    saying he’s gay cause he looked at the starbucks man in a different way. and that’s just how the world is. its wrong but all we can do is feel sadness for those who don’t apperciate everyone in this world.

    families will scowl that this is a movie that is shameful and evil but
    what they don’t understand is that people are going to be the way they feel. and some are just too afraid of “different”

  • hobbist

    “Contrary to popular belief it is ok to find homosexual sex disgusting and creepy and still not be a homophobe. why does everyone have to accept or pretend to accept something they don’t care for or believe is right?”

    If finding someone else’s way of life disgusting and creapy isn’t homophobia (or whatever other flavor -phobia applies), than what is?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Indeed hobbist, indeed.

  • Jessica

    As a gay woman i disagree with the comments above. i dont believe Wahlberg is a homophobe! Believe it or not, not all gay people are offended by Walhberg’s statement to decline the role. Look at what your saying! If a straight man is “creeped out” at the thought of kissing another man it does not make him a homophobe it just makes him straight! Chriss you need to cut Wahlberg some slack i dont see you marching in the gay pride parade or kissing other men to prove that your not a homophobe. The fact that you think using the words “creeped out” makes him a homophobe is just pathetic. Honestly that offends me more than what Wahlberg said.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Jessica, when he was writing this article, I was researching it too. Mark Whalberg was indeed “creeped out” when Ang lee offered him the roll.

    However, because Wahlberg was a sex idol for many gay men with that 6 pack, low slung pants and gyrating hips, and he knew it, he began denying any rumors so strongly, that he wound up apologizing to Elton John before appearing at a benefit concert to honor “Queen”.

    He was also rumored to be gay in the tabloids constantly to the point of ending his identity of “Marky Mark” in order to persue his movie career with a clean slate… so to speak.

  • Tammy

    Yup I think gay sex between men or women is disgusting, and I get tired of having to accept something that I have never viewed as normal. I still don’t go around shouting gays should die, or run away everytime I see a gay person. I treat them as a human being, but I do not want to hear about your little session you had the night before with Tim or Tina. I don’t tell people about my sex life, because it is no one’s business. Aside from that, I love Wahlberg and I do not believe he is one bit homophobic. I think that’s gay people favorite word these days. Anytime us straight people say you can live your life how you want to, but we don’t have to accept it gets us labeled as homophobic. Honestly who cares what you think. The man turned down the role, because he is not comfortable pretending to have fake anal sex with another man. Hell I would turn down a role if I had to stick my face in another woman’s vagina. It’s all about what you believe in and what you are comfortable with. Leave the damn man alone. Why are you worried about what a straight man says or does anyway? He isn’t dying to be accepted by gay people, nor does he want to have sex with any of you. Get over yourselves.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    Do you treat every human being in that condescending fashion, Tammy? If so, I do suppose you’re treating homosexuals equally.

  • http://skatingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Tammy, I think you should take your own advice and mind your own business. I hate eating clams, snails, and seafood, but I don’t go around bitching people out because they talk about how much they like it in my presence.

    Judge not lest you be judged yourself dearie.

    As for Marky, he’s changed his tune lately and now says he’d have loved to have taken the roll in order to work with such a great director as Ang Lee.

    I guess he can’t keep his story “Straight”

  • http://skatingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    …Allegedly Wahlberg said the following; “I met with Ang Lee on that movie, I read 15 pages of the script and got a little creeped out. It was very graphic, descriptive – the spitting on the hand, getting ready to do the thing. I told Ang Lee, ‘I like you, you’re a talented guy, if you want to talk about it more…’ Thankfully, he didn’t.”

    However, in a later interview with Access Hollywood, Wahlberg denied the story.

    You don’t pass up an opportunity to work with Ang Lee… I was never offered the movie… He didn’t think I was a good enough actor to play the part,” Wahlberg said in the interview…”

  • William

    50 yrs old-caucasion-straight-male
    I believe Mark Walberg was sharing his personal truth and in no way was he condemning others.

    He was merely stating that he felt uncomfortable with what he would be asked to do in the role.
    If I were an actor I would have to turn down a role in a horror movie where I would be required to have spiders crawl all over me. It would creep me out! And yet spiders are a natural and necessary thing on this planet that we share. I am certainly not equating the two, but despite what certain zealots say, Homosexuality is natural in a certain percentage of humans. Just as it is found in nature’s animal kingdom.
    Years ago I worked in a magazine store where we offered mags of every type, including hardcore gay.
    “Creeped out” is exactly how I would describe my physical reaction when viewing the graphic sex between two men. It was a purely visceral feeling, crude and unreasoning, without any concious thought to it.
    Now let me tell you this, At that time my boss was gay and he was a good man and I admired him. Alot of my friends were gay and I had done some experimentation including kissing. That did not “creep me out”.

    Today I am a Minister that follows the teachings of Jesus. The sex life of another human being is a non-issue to me, unless they are using it in a way to harm themselves or others and they come to me for counseling. In that way, sex is the same as food or drugs or shopping or any other activity.
    To truly live according to the teachings of Christ, one must be caring and not judgemental, tolerant and not condemning.
    Homosexuality is much less a problem for this world than the people that use their idea of God as a weapon to hurt and control others.
    How bizarre it is to find that many of the people preaching Heaven are making this life a “Hell on earth” for their spiritual brothers and sisters.

  • Chris Evans

    “You don’t pass up an opportunity to work with Ang Lee… I was never offered the movie… He didn’t think I was a good enough actor to play the part,” Wahlberg said in the interview…”

    Jet, this quote doesn’t dispute the original one. We already knew Ang Lee passed over him for the role, Mark was stating the reasons he was happy Ang did pass it up.

  • The Obnoxious American

    You’re being a little too harsh on Tammy. I am a straight male, not interested in watching gay love, it’s not interesting to me, and it is a turn off to watch. I am not anti gay by any stretch, I have no problem whatsoever with gays. I think they should have equal rights and be allowed to marry.

    But does that mean I shouldn’t feel the way I do when confronted with watching the activities of two consenting male adults, whether as a result of screenplay or PDA?

    I wouldn’t want to watch an old hetero couple french kiss. That does not mean I am anti old hetero relationships either, just means I don’t care to see it is all.

    One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am.

    Obviously this identification problem exists because of prejudice, but it’s just a shame because for one, gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do, and for another, it’s annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am.

    Wouldn’t you say, though, that a lot of what defines a person is what makes them different? As a Limey living in California, I’m certainly more keenly aware of my Britishness than I used to be. If you pay attention on these boards, I’m usually one of the first to leap to my country’s defence when someone trash-talks the old country. (Usually just behind STM, interestingly enough, who’s often quicker off the mark even though he’s not even British and professes – with tongue firmly in cheek – to hate the place and its people!)

    So it’s not all that surprising or odd that a gay person would view their gayness as a primary part of their identity.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Certainly, but look at some of the responses in this thread. Rather, look at the response to the movie itself. Take away the fact that it’s two men, and this is just another love story. I mean you are certainly right that it’s what makes us different that defines us, to a degree. But it shouldn’t be the only thing that defines us.

    I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them. That’s why there are not that many gay republicans out there. I don’t think all gays are anti war liberals, but invariably they vote Democrat because this issue for them takes precidence over anything else. I know, it’s hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that’s part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality.

    I can’t wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons.

  • http://skatingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    In an old episode of Star Trek there’s a race of people born with one entire half of their bodies black and the other side white split right down the middle.

    Every one sees them as half black and half white, until it’s pointed out why one seemingly “normal” one is discriminated against… because he’s black on his left side instead of being black on his right side.

    When you’re constantly being discriminated against depending on something that seemingly doesn’t seem to or shouldn’t make a difference, it does become your identity, though you don’t want it to.

    It’s the same reason protestants and catholics were killing each other in the British Isles and Ireland. To look at them, you’d never be able to tell the difference, yet their whole being was identified as either one or the other…

    There’s a line from “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner” where he tells his father, “Dad; you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.”

    That’s how it should be for everyone, but we gays just keep on letting bigots identify ourselves by our sexual preference.

    Until we learn, that’s how it’ll always be.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    I think everybody chooses how self-identification works, though. I find it incredibly ironic that “The Obnoxious American” would chide others for having one main thing to define them. Clearly we choose how we define ourselves and homosexuals are no different. Whether we choose to make our defining factor our nationality or our sexuality, it is our right and I don’t think it deepens the inevitable social divide created be prejudices and ignorance.

  • http://skatingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Especially ignorance…

  • The Obnoxious American

    “I find it incredibly ironic that “The Obnoxious American” would chide others for having one main thing to define them. “

    what?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Jordan, I never chided anyone. I would appreciate it if you ever do plan to respond to my posts, to give them a thorough read first, and ensure you understand the concepts I am putting out there. You don’t have to of course, it’s a free country and you can certainly choose to be ignorant. I’d just prefer if you kept your ignorance away from any conversation about me, thanks.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    The same applies to you, dear friend. You elect to take ONE sentence out of my post, then give a rather smug “what?” response to it, then attempt to dictate the terms of discussion to me. I’d invite you to also give my posts the thorough read that you invite of me. Perhaps then we can understand each other better.

    Now let’s see if we can’t shed some light on what I was referring to. I didn’t know what to respond to with your “what?” reply, so I’m glad you chose to be more specific.

    “One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves.”

    Here you reprimand (also known as “chiding”) the “gay movement” for defining themselves by being gay. You even refer to it as a tragedy that they do this. You go on to say that homosexuality shouldn’t be the way gay people define themselves because, after all, you’re a straight male and that’s not how you define yourself. You dictate terms of self-definition on people here, implying (or stating outright) that it is a “tragedy” that people choose to define themselves in this way.

    “gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do”

    Most do, from my experience. This is a rather hollow generalization that, again, speaks to your own standards of self-identification. The irony part is coming….

    “it’s annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference”

    The rest of us? Who are the “rest of us?”

    “I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them.”

    I think for many Americans, it is the main thing that defines them.

    “I know, it’s hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that’s part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality.”

    I know, it’s hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that’s part of the reason why so many Americans are defined by their national identity.

    So here you are defining yourself by “American,” correct? Surely there’s nothing wrong with that (by the way, I’m not suggesting there is). Surely YOU are capable of picking your own terms of self-definition and I am guessing that you choose to define yourself as an American. I’m betting, based only on your S/N mind you, that the “main thing” you use to define yourself is your national identity (ie. where you’re from).

    Now let’s look at all of my post in that context.

    “I think everybody chooses how self-identification works, though.”

    Individuals set their own self-identification standards. Whether one wants to be “mainly gay” or “mainly American” is up to the individual. It is no great tragedy to identify oneself as “mainly American,” so who gets to say that it IS a great tragedy if one selects to identify themselves by “mainly gay?” I’m not asserting that you have any homophobic issues here, by the way. “Gay” could just as easily be substituted with “black” or what have you.

    “I find it incredibly ironic that “The Obnoxious American” would chide others for having one main thing to define them. Clearly we choose how we define ourselves and homosexuals are no different.”

    These two sentences were written closely together because they go together. Taking one apart from the other is like separating conjoined twins. We CHOOSE how to define ourselves, whether we say we’re “Obnoxious American” or “Obnoxiously Gay.” Again, judging this purely from your S/N, you choose to define yourself as a certain type of American. That is your MAIN definition.

    “Whether we choose to make our defining factor our nationality or our sexuality, it is our right and I don’t think it deepens the inevitable social divide created be prejudices and ignorance.”

    There is no evidence to suggest that what we define ourselves as has any bearing on the abundance of prejudice in society. The ONLY consideration here is to assume that if homosexuals remained in the closet (which would be absolutely horrible), their self-identification might have led to self-preservation. By not telling anyone you’re gay, nobody knows you’re gay. Much like an American traveling abroad, however, there’s no sane reason to hide this fact of life. Whether one’s homosexuality or heterosexuality is one’s “main thing” is really a matter of personal choice and chiding a people group for it (as you did) is ironic given the idea that your nature appears to be similar.

    The problem with your argument is in its flaws of self-expression. By the way, I’d argue that there are MANY individuals out there that have as their main identifying factor their heterosexuality. Commercials, pornography, sexuality in media all seem to direct us to the point that we’re “straight and we’re proud.” I don’t think it’s erroneous to suggest that people use their sexuality, gay straight or other, to identify themselves.

    I do agree with your notion that we can find much better reasons to hate one another. It is ridiculous to hate anyone because of a life preference they have made or because of a national identity. But it is also ridiculous to suggest that one people group shouldn’t be so “proud” of their gayness and identify themselves so “mainly” with their sexuality. With the amount of boobage that a gay man likely has to ensure just by flipping on the television or walking past a magazine stand, I don’t blame him for wanting to express his lifestyle in turn.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Jordan, you’ll have to do better than that.

    “”One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves.”

    Here you reprimand (also known as “chiding”) the “gay movement” for defining themselves by being gay. You even refer to it as a tragedy that they do this.”

    Here was the full comment of what I said (try to read it completely this time):

    “One of the tragedies of being gay, and interestingly one of the problems of the gay movement is that in a lot of ways, being gay is how many gay people define themselves. I am hetero, but that hardly defines who I am.

    Obviously this identification problem exists because of prejudice, but it’s just a shame because for one, gay people should be able to define themselves much more broadly just as hetero people do, and for another, it’s annoying for the rest of us to deal with people who define themselves purely by their sexual preference.”

    That’s hardly chiding. You’re being rather childish trying to take words out of context. Thankfully, most of the other people here are smart enough to refrain from doing that.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    So we’re having a semantical discussion on what “chiding” means and YOU are giving me a lesson on “context” by glossing over my entire post? Interesting. Would you care to answer any of my questions or concerns or shall we simply debate what “chiding” means?

    chide
    v. chid·ed or chid (chd), chid·ed or chid or chid·den (chdn), chid·ing, chides
    v.tr.

    To scold mildly so as to correct or improve; reprimand: ex: chided the boy for his sloppiness.

    v.intr.
    To express disapproval.

    You were EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL of the notion that homosexuals would use, as their “main identifying factor,” their gayness. You were “scolding mildly” so as to correct or improve. I hardly see why this is so difficult to understand, but if your intent is to simply misrepresent yourself, I guess I can’t do anything about it.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    By the way, as to not reading the whole quotation, I actually responded to most of the selections in that quote on a sentence by sentence basis. It seems to me you didn’t get that far in my post before you started to articulate your reply, but I might be wrong.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Here is my second post on the topic:

    “I think for many gay people, it is the main thing that defines them. That’s why there are not that many gay republicans out there. I don’t think all gays are anti war liberals, but invariably they vote Democrat because this issue for them takes precidence over anything else. I know, it’s hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that’s part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality.

    I can’t wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons.”

    See Jordan, I have gay friends, I’ve grown up in NYC. I may lean right, but this is where I lean left. Don’t try and turn the tables claiming that I took you out of context, because that’s laughable – you said that it was ironic that I would chide people for having one thing that defines them. That would either indicate that I was chiding, or that I only have a single definition of who I am, or a combination of the both. Sorry bud, neither is true, had you read my comments before you typed my name in contempt, we wouldn’t be wasting keystrokes right now.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Jordan,

    Last time I spell it out for you. If I was disapproving of the fact that being gay defines many gays, then I wouldn’t have said this:

    “I know, it’s hard to ignore prejudice, which is why I said that’s part of the reason why so many gays are defined by their sexuality.”

    It’s not a chiding or a scolding or a disapproval, it’s an observation. Nothing more. Next time read and try to understand the purpose of the comments before posting.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    “See Jordan, I have gay friends, I’ve grown up in NYC. I may lean right, but this is where I lean left.”

    Okay. I never once asserted that you had any problems with homosexuals, the homosexual lifestyle, or the homosexual arrangement of self-identification. I merely pointed out an irony and, when asked to clarify my own observations, did so. You continue to miss the irony, as evidenced in the remainder of your posts. You’re hung up on a word I used to describe certain sentences of your posts. By no means do I wish to articulate that your idea OVERALL is to “chide” homosexuals for identifying themselves “mainly” by their homosexuality.

    “Don’t try and turn the tables claiming that I took you out of context, because that’s laughable – you said that it was ironic that I would chide people for having one thing that defines them. That would either indicate that I was chiding, or that I only have a single definition of who I am, or a combination of the both. Sorry bud, neither is true, had you read my comments before you typed my name in contempt, we wouldn’t be wasting keystrokes right now.”

    I told you where my inference came from (your s/n). If it does better for the course of the overall discussion, change my word “chide” to “observe.” I didn’t type your name in contempt, actually, I typed it in good humour. It may do you some good to adapt some of that.

    I also did say that you critiqued people for having “ONE thing” that defines them. I used the term “main thing” to discuss this. Then I said that being “American” is the “main thing” that many people use to define themselves. I went on to say that this is no different than those who use “homosexual” as their “main thing.” You said that you believe it is a TRAGEDY (for whatever reason you believe it is a tragedy is actually irrelevant here because I am not making any moral or ethical statement against you nor am I uttering your precious name in contempt) for homosexuals to have as their main defining factor their homosexuality. I noted that some might think it is a tragedy for an American to have as their main defining factor their national identity.

    “It’s not a chiding or a scolding or a disapproval, it’s an observation. Nothing more. Next time read and try to understand the purpose of the comments before posting.”

    This does not change one word of my point. Whether you were hostile or genteel or even indifferent hardly matters to the irony I found in the situation.

    I would argue that you think it IS disapproving that homosexuals DO define themselves “mainly” in this way, however, or you probably wouldn’t have said it in the first place.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “I told you where my inference came from (your s/n). If it does better for the course of the overall discussion, change my word “chide” to “observe.” I didn’t type your name in contempt, actually, I typed it in good humour. It may do you some good to adapt some of that.”

    First, don’t judge a book by it’s cover. And just because I am an American (or sarcastically obnoxious) does not mean that I am singly defined. Frankly if I am representative of America, then I am defined by a huge variety of things, none of which relate to preference. To suggest that I am singly defined by having the word American in my name is utterly superficial.

    On the point of adapting good humor, I do all the time. But your comment didn’t contain any.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I would argue that you think it IS disapproving that homosexuals DO define themselves “mainly” in this way, however, or you probably wouldn’t have said it in the first place.

    Actually, I said “person” on the basis on their preference. Notice I didn’t single out homosexuals. I brought that point up because I have a friend who is a transexual. For me, I live my entire life not even thinking about my sex, or preference. It’s a given and I can spend my time thinking about my job, my family, my playtime, etc.

    However, my friend, whether she likes it or not, is completely defined by her preference. She’s an incredibly smart person, but her whole life has been spent thinking about the fact that she was born with the wrong equiptment, or dealing with the process to change it, and then dealing with living with that change. So much work, for something that people with “normal” preferences don’t even have to think about.

    This to me is what the tragedy is. She could contribute so much more for herself, for society, but social mores force her to spend so much time on which hole to put the thing into. I can’t think of a worse tragedy. Hence my last actual statement in this thread that meant anything (because our exchange has been nothing more than remedial) “I can’t wait for a day when we can hate each other for much less superficial reasons.”

    Props to Jet who actually read and understood what I was saying from the get go. Have a great weekend yall.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    “First, don’t judge a book by it’s cover.”

    A point noted and dutifully conceded to me in my first retort. The entire basis for my comment in question was an ironic statement in jest about your screen name. Rightly or wrongly, it led to all of this.

    “And just because I am an American (or sarcastically obnoxious) does not mean that I am singly defined. Frankly if I am representative of America, then I am defined by a huge variety of things, none of which relate to preference. To suggest that I am singly defined by having the word American in my name is utterly superficial.”

    It absolutely is, yet it speaks to self-definition as I mentioned in my post. It is equally superficial to assume that homosexuals (or at least in your words “many” of them) define themselves in the same way and not also in a huge variety of things. The original context of your comment was to suggest that, for right or wrong reasons and for good or for bad, that many homosexual people define themselves by their homosexuality MAINLY. Do I have this right or do I not?

    “On the point of adapting good humor, I do all the time. But your comment didn’t contain any.”

    I apologize. Again, it was meant mainly in jest. It had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with how we, as individuals, choose to identify ourselves. In your specific case, I poked fun at how you chose to identify yourself in this particular website and how your self-identification can be seen as identifying yourself as “mainly” an “Obnoxious American.” I can see now that my comment was offensive more than it was humourous, so I do offer my sincere apologies. I do not regret the subsequent discussion, however.

    “Actually, I said “person” on the basis on their preference. Notice I didn’t single out homosexuals. I brought that point up because I have a friend who is a transexual. For me, I live my entire life not even thinking about my sex, or preference. It’s a given and I can spend my time thinking about my job, my family, my playtime, etc.”

    Notice I didn’t claim you singled out homosexuals. In a previous post, I mentioned that you could replace “homosexuals” with “black” or some other sort of variable and this conversation would still have merit. All of these things speak to how we identify ourselves in certain spaces. In this instance, at the particular moment in space and time during my original post, it struck me as ironic and humourous that your observation was such with your screen name as such. Talking about “mainly identifying” oneself, I thought!

    If you live your life not thinking about your preference, I suppose that is your cross to bear. However, as outlined in my other post, I do not think that that philosophy is indicative as a culture by and large. I think our heterosexuality is flaunted, waved like a flag, and paraded around excessively in marketing, music videos, television shows, movies, porn, etc. on a constant and consistent basis throughout the 24/7 of the daily grind. I think our culture does, as a majority, DEFINE itself by its sexuality. Sex sells, as they say. In THAT context, then, I think my commentary takes on a bit of a new meaning.

    I agree 100% with your subsequent statements in your post, by the way. It damn well SHOULD be a chiding of the way things are, Obnox.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    I should also apologize for some confusion I had with the idea of self-identification vs. external identification. While I took much of your comment to mean that many homosexuals self-identify themselves mainly by their “gayness,” I missed what you were saying about the external identification of the gay community by those upholding mythological social mores. That surely is a great tragedy and I apologize for failing to see this point.

  • The Obnoxious American

    No need to apologize, it’s a hard point to see and easy to miss given my general political direction.

    “think our heterosexuality is flaunted, waved like a flag, and paraded around excessively in marketing, music videos, television shows, movies, porn, etc. on a constant and consistent basis throughout the 24/7 of the daily grind.”

    Actually, yeah that’s true too.

  • http://www.intersportswire.com alessandro

    Blah, blah…

    Loss of Hedger notwithstanding, when does the sequel come out? I hear it’s about a story of forbidden love between a Cowboy and an Indian. Together they bring peace to “Squeal Valley.”

    Native (claps hand once): “Me. You.”
    Cowboy (Points to himself): “Me? Ok.”

    They may even bring back that banjo player in Deliverance for the love scenes.

  • Sara

    Julie, it is natural! Your probably a typical obese american woman. OBESITY is not natural you heffer. The religious right and blacks need to wake up!

  • sickening!

    he was probably creeped out cause gay is not the way. Its just sick! Thats how aids is contracted but I guess its good that the more that are gay will die from aids and decrease the surplus population. I mean what is the deal, at least a woman has an extra hole. comment back please lol!

  • Jeremy

    Complain about lack of acceptance all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that if were to ask a gay man about what he thought of straight sex he would probably tell you that it is the most disgusting thing on Earth.

    I have heard some gay men use some of the most interesting (and hilarious) words to describe a woman’s part, “slimy”, “cold” and “a dark tunnel” being among them. I mean I could understand boring or unfulfilling but the way they described it is just whole other level of confusion for me.

    It may be difficult to accept but a vital part of the monosexual sex drive is a repelent effect for the opposite gender, there is actually very few monosexuals who can say they’re open to doing it with their unpreffered gender. Even the two primary actors (I love them to bits, RIP Heath) were a tad awkward when talking about how they “did it” and put it down to a business style approach.

    I personally can’t understand being repelled by the other gender because I am NOT monosexual. But I think we just need to accept there are some things we’ll never understand.

  • Derek Williams

    I agree with the comments in this article. Morever, I think if he had been re-approached by Ang Lee Wahlberg would have taken on the movie. The fact that he wasn’t, and that it became successful, incredibly and counter-intutively so, may have led to a hint of ‘sour grapes’ and a tendency to dismiss with a snide comment about the gay aspect, but he did have the decency to acknowledge the quality of the end result. I like him; he is a good actor. i will see a movie with his name on it any time.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Keith Boykin sets the record “straight” in an interview with Marky Mark. I’ll take Wahlberg at his word. I have my suspicions but they’re just that. We’re all evolving and in another 20 years no one is going to care. Except, of course, where Mel Gibson is concerned. He’s just a Nazi.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Maybe he just couldn’t find his fake dick from “Boogie Nights” so he turned it down rather than be embarrased?

    {8^Pb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    He’s a “legend”, Jet. Has a reputation that goes further back than his career. I’d put Marky Mark against John Edwards any day and we’ve all heard the Edwards’ rumors. Anyway, Wahlberg had a certain image back then which he had to maintain with his fan base. It makes good business sense to pander to your base. He’s kind of like FOX News on steroids. But behind the scenes he’s probably very tolerant, if not a participant.

  • DocRichie

    I think you’re overreacting to the “creeped out” phrase.

    I’m gay and it creeps me out to think about sex with a woman. LOL. Would I PRETEND in a movie?? Sure…but’s TO ME, it’s still kinda creepy.

  • SheQuon

    “Just like, I imagine, heterosexual acts would creep out homosexuals.”

    WRONG.

    Just because gay people have no desire for heterosexual sex, does not mean it “creeps them out”. I have never seen a gay person react that way to just THE IDEA of doing it–even for real, let alone just in playing a role.

    If he said the thought of kissing a [insert race of choice here] person “creeped him out”, there’d be no question the man has issues. Same goes for this issue.

    Even worse are actors Paul Walker and Tyrese Gibson, who–when asked just for the fun of it, what male celebrity they would “switch” for–couldn’t even play along and stomach the idea enough to give a silly retort. without vocalizing their opposition. Pathetic.

  • James Blond

    It’s not disturbing that Wahlberg was creeped out by the script. I’ve had plenty of gay friends be creeped out when they find out I had a girlfriend in college. But would they say that in print?

    What is disturbing is the confidence that Wahlberg had in talking about his feelings in an interview — confidence which is well placed when you see the commenters above backing him up, saying there’s nothing wrong with expressing who you are and what you like. How would they react if it was a gay male actor talking frankly about being “creeped out” by the thought of a sex scene with a woman? Or a straight white actor being “creeped out” by the thought of a sex scene with a black woman?

    That would demonstrate the real ugliness of this double standard — the revelation of what and where the acceptable level of homophobia is. Dress it up as “humanity” or “honesty” all you want, it’s still homophobia, folks.

    I’m pretty much a fan of Wahlberg’s. But he sure makes a good case for honesty being a gift that’s best kept to yourself.

  • Josh

    I realize this is a late comment but im a gay man i watch plenty of straight sex scenes im not “disgusted” at all, i think anyone who is disgusted by a gay sex scene is simply insecure or misguided, i hope one day this all comes to an end but it will be a long long time until we see that day

  • Hark

    “It’s easier for you to play that than to play a man who’s in love with another man?”

    yes, it is

  • Inbetween

    Lets clam down! I don’t want to watch Sadomasochists have sex or see a movie about them. It makes me uncomfortable, but at the same time I don’t care if people do it. If that’s your thing then OK (have fun and be safe). I love gay people; I’m bi and I’m a supporter. What’s important to me isn’t whither or not Mark (or anyone) wants to act like a gay man or see movies about them. What matters is that they support them. I’ve known straight men to feel uncomfortable watching gay movies but still go out to gay pride and support the LBGTQ community. ALSO, let’s all remember that Lloyd form Entourage is GAY! Entourage is a show based on Marks experiences.

  • rory

    Julie, let’s just make this clear, homosexuality IS natural. Just as natural as the sun rising every morning!

  • erin

    Mark Walhberg hasnt the brains he was born with , he is a total idiot., now he is saying that he has just finished college, after completing an on line course, ( o mark we are all in awe of your intelligence) spare me from these jumped up no bodys.

  • Maru

    I had a huge crush on Mark but after i heard his ridiculous reasons to decline to do ‘Brokeback’ i got really dissapointed…Obviously Ang Lee didn’t talk to him no more about the film probably (most likely for sure) cause he got that Mark wasn’t smart enough to go beyond that shity thing called ‘prejudice’ and just take the scrip for what it was, a love story about two people who happened to be gays. Lee should have casted Walhberg as the homofobic, that’s a role he seems to get along pretty well. That’s when i understood that he was just gonna be one of the bunch, he goes after the sure thing, and for an artist wannabe that’s the worst thing to do, in fact for everybody. Funny, cause Heath Ledger, now death, was a greater actor Mark will ever be…and he got an Oscar.

%d bloggers like this: