The queer experience ✨🏳️🌈 (and don't get me started on figuring out my gender, that would take at least the same amount of space and time [I *will* make a comic about that as well, very soon! c:])
[ID: A comic about sexuality. It starts with the bisexual flag that says "as a teen, I realized I was interested in both boys and girls and I thought that meant I was bisexual".
Then, it goes to the pan flag and says "I later noticed that gender didn't matter to me at all - just the individual people I liked; pansexual?".
Then there is a lesbian flat with text "at times I also thought I could not possibly like the opposite gender; was I a lesbian trying to fit in?".
Then there is a straight black and white striped flat that says "at other times I thought I was straight, just pretending to be queer to show off".
Then there is an asexual flag with writing "growing older, I noticed I rarely even have sexual attraction to other people* does that make me ace?" and a small demisexual flag saying "*unless it's good friends I have a deep connection with - demisexual?".
Then there is an aromantic flat that says "I also don't crave romantic relationships like others do*, would that make me aro?" with a smaller demiromantic flag that reads "*unless they are very untraditional and with friends I already have a deep connection with - demiromantic?"
At the bottom of the comic there is a simple figure looking up at the flags and text above it, confused, with question marks around them. END ID]
I will not apologize for what I am going to write. It’s my own take, yes, but in my opinion all of this ought to be obvious to anyone watching the movie.
I will not refer to André Aciman’s book, not having read it.
I am Italian and I grew up in places like we see in the movie. I’m not denying that the way it’s shot and the general atmosphere are often gorgeous, but that was not sufficient to convince me that this movie is romantic, probably because I’m used to it.
What This is Not: Grooming / Sexual Predation
Reading up reactions to this movie, I have stumbled often over criticism about the age gap between the two protagonists. In my opinion this is beside the point: we are speaking of 7 years, not of a generational gap, and Oliver is still a student. Elio is mature for his age, and after some initial reticence, he approaches Oliver by himself over and over. His family knows and encourages (or at least doesn't oppose) them, and Elio has more than one opportunity to say no, which he doesn’t take.
Oliver is not a predator. He’s confused, but that’s not because he doesn't feel the attraction between himself and Elio: he simply doesn’t understand it.
Elephant in the room no. 1: Oliver is a bad person.
Oliver comes across as irreverent and self-absorbed. He does not respect boundaries, does not knock on doors, does not fit in with the lifestyle and customs of his hosts, only occasionally he does things that will make people think well of him. Early in their acquaintance he expects Elio to tell him what he is going on in his head but doesn't do the same in return (he never does, even later); his entire behaviour seems to be aimed at irritating and challenging his surroundings.
There is no depth in Oliver, no creativity, contrarily to Elio who already composes at age 17; somehow Oliver seems to know that he is the inferior one. At times he is downright offensive to Elio, for no reason at all, like he wasn’t a guest in their house. Oliver moves around in a foreign place like everybody owes him; he does not wonder, question, ask for explanations. He plays with Elio’s youthful insecurity, who is still hardly shaving and feels in the shadow of Oliver’s allegedly superior manliness. It is not surprising that to Elio he soon appears as some kind of handsome, unreachable prince.
Oliver is the kind of person who manages, on purpose or not, to convince the people around him that he is someone special, irresistible, and that being his friend or lover is a privilege. Elio falls for it, and Oliver picks the fruit of that attraction. Oliver does not love Elio because he does not love anyone, being too busy with thinking of himself.
At first Elio doesn’t like him; he notices that although Oliver never shows regard for anyone, he gets away with it. Elio’s family and friends fall for his self-assuredness and expect him to befriend Oliver. Piqued by the fact that Elio is the only person who is wary around him (with good reason!), Oliver repeatedly behaves in a way that frustrates Elio, repeatedly invading his private space, ignoring his limits, alternating insults with niceties, giving him attention one minute and completely ignoring him the next. And he never seems scheming picking at Elio’s insecurities whenever he gets a pass: it’s like second nature to him. He doesn’t do it because he loves Elio and doesn’t want to admit it, because he’s scared or something like that; he does it because he can, and because it works. He wants Elio to look up to him the way everybody does. After a while, the insecure Elio gets obsessed with wanting the older man’s approval.
Oliver starts a relationship with Elio knowing that the younger man has a girlfriend; he doesn’t even ask about her, whether Elio broke up with her etc. Oliver seems to believe that Elio owes him his undivided attention. By keeping their relationship a secret, Oliver makes the hapless Elio his accomplice. Even if he wanted to or if he would slowly begin to suspect that something's not right, he couldn’t talk to anyone about it. No one would believe him anyway, since everybody thinks the world of Oliver.
Oliver humiliates Elio, who by then is his lover, when he finds out about the peach: he laughs at him, not with him. (Why was Elio masturbating anyway, while he was in a sexual relationship?) When they are in Bergamo Oliver starts partying with random strangers on the street (with a woman!) when Elio is about to be sick: an observant lover would have noticed it before it was too late. Although they live under the same roof, he never sleeps in the same bed with him but gets up earlier, even when they are sharing a hotel room. He never tells Elio what is making him refrain from intimacy.
Oliver destroys Elio’s creativity by commenting negatively both on his composition and his impassioned love letter; we never see the young man making music or writing again. Shouldn’t a person in requited love feel inspired and happy and want to sing and play all day long? That he gives up on his interests already foreshadows the deep depression Elio is destined to fall into.
Viewers who love this movie like to argue that Oliver is so distant because he’s afraid of hurting Elio or shy because he’s in the closet. But it’s plain to see that Oliver knows exactly what he’s doing. He just doesn’t understand why because he’s not the kind of person who second-guesses himself. He’s controlling a power play with a younger man, probably because he doesn’t know how to have a genuine relationship with anyone. And Elio is too defenceless against him. When his mother comes to pick him up at the railway station and his voice breaks on the phone, it is obvious what a child Elio still is interiorly. He didn’t grow up through this relationship. He didn’t know what he was getting into and then had to pay the full price for another man’s egotism.
As the movie comes to a close, we can see that what he and Elio shared did hit Oliver harder than he had expected, but not enough for him to change, or only to reflect about it. Oliver is not aware of what he’s doing to Elio; to him everything is fun and games while to Elio it’s a life-changing experience.
Elephant in the room no. 2: Elio is not in love, he’s hooked.
Elio begins to imitate Oliver like a younger brother would do with the older - he smokes, wears a Jewish symbol on a chain, he has sex with Marzia only to prove a point because he knows Oliver had sex with Chiara. After a while, he gets obsessed with wanting the older man’s approval, for him to see him as an equal instead of an annoying boy he can either ignore or boss around.
Being both intellectual and highly sensitive, Elio believes that the more experienced and seemingly more mature Oliver must know the answers to life’s most burning questions; which Oliver doesn’t, as much as Elio wishes he would.
There isn’t the slightest sign of genuine love coming from Oliver; he only takes. Elio, being a giving, honest person, falls into a trap. Oliver has caught Elio and also half a dozen other people in his net, but he never had the slightest intention to put his roots down and actually like anyone back. Oliver’s attitude towards Elio is avoidant, but that is not because he wants to prevent him or himself from getting hurt; it’s because he doesn’t want to get attached and have to face the consequences.
In the scene where we first see Oliver interact with the family, he says at breakfast that he shouldn’t eat an egg because otherwise he’ll eat two, three, and more until they will have to roll him away. This already shows what kind of person Oliver is: he doesn’t know when to stop. Elio mistakenly believes that this lack of restrain, this want of limits is a sign of superior maturity and self-assuredness. He won’t realize to the last that in truth this attitude shows nothing short of a total lack of responsibility.
Elio says so to his father once: he does not play poker. Oliver is a poker player through and through. Despite the poetic request to “call him by his name”, Oliver remains shrouded in mystery. He does not change; while Elio wakes up, both sexually and emotionally.
There also is the symbolism: the dying fish gasping its least breath with eyes wide open (symbolizing Elio), the bronze statue, beautiful but cold and lifeless (symbolizing Oliver). The connection is made by the fact that both tokens come from the water.
All Oliver wanted and expected was to spend a good time in Italy with no strings attached. Which also is why we hardly see him working and studying, the way he’s supposed to. After all he did to Elio, his final revelation that he has a girlfriend and is about to marry her is only the coup de grâce.
Elephant in the room no. 3: Elio’s father is a fool.
I couldn’t bring myself to admire Elio’s father for what he said to his son, presumably wanting to comfort him: that “it had been a particularly beautiful thing between them”, and “he wished he would have made such an experience.”
How does he know what happened in detail? Does he know what is in these two young men’s hearts? Does he know about the humiliations Oliver inflicted on Elio? Probably not, but in any case, Oliver has given him no reason to believe that he’s a good person the way he claims.
We did not see father and son interact at all before this scene. All we learn is that both Elio’s parents expect their son to be nice to their guest and to befriend him, and that they don’t mind if there is more than friendship. We never learn whether Elio’s father loves him and cares for him (at least his mother shows affection from time to time). Imagine needing to have your entire world and happiness destroyed just so your father will finally give you some attention and kindness.
Elio’s father never changes his mind, even when he learns that Oliver is getting married. A caring, responsible father would have opened his son’s eyes about the fact that he was used and then discarded. I have no clue as to why any queer person would want their parent to do anything like that to them, leaving their heart open to bleed.
Add to this that he does not ask whether they used protection. The movie is set in 1983, and the first AIDS wave struck in 1981. Papa Perlman doesn’t seem to mind that his son might have caught a horrible, incurable disease, all that matters is that his son had sex with another male. Yay. (Maybe he believes in the adage that true love exists only between members of the same sex, who knows.)
I guess this little speech is meant to be politically correct. Woe if you dare to see the dysfunction in a relationship when it’s same-sex.
Elephant in the room no. 4: Elio did not need Oliver.
When we meet him, Elio is well-educated, living in a beautiful place where he also grew up, he has a supportive family, enough free time (they even have servants), he’s healthy and serene and he has a girlfriend. He’s intelligent, well-learned and creative.
When we last see him, he’s devastated, staring into the fire and crying for minutes on end.
Oliver is not “only” a sexual predator. He’s a textbook manipulator, the sexual part isn’t even what it’s about. Manipulators may want money, sex, attention from their victims or a combination of these, but what they always want is power. They rejoice in the knowledge that their prey is ready to do whatever they want at their command, that they can’t live without them, at least not happily. Oliver would have taken anything Elio gave him and crushed it, not just his sexuality.
Just imagine the pain Elio must feel now every time someone says his own name, or when he goes to his “special place” by the creek! He can’t compose, play the guitar or write any more, because everything reminds him of Oliver. And all of the time, Oliver had the chance to either avoid a relationship with him or to let go once he had left him; but you need some basic common decency for that.
Oliver realized quickly that Elio, though younger, is much better than he is, healthier, smarter, more accomplished, more innocent, honest and kind-hearted. Oliver took all that, used it or destroyed it and left Elio in the shards of his former self, no longer in a position to enjoy the things and the people he used to love, tortured additionally by the knowledge that Oliver is about to marry someone else, i.e. that Elio apparently wasn’t good enough for him. Elio ends like a modern Pygmalion, crying about the fact that all of his love could not bring the object of his adoration to life; hence also the parallel between Oliver and the statue.
Elephant in the room no. 5: Elio is not gay, he’s bisexual. (Maybe.)
Elio has a girlfriend when we first meet him; it is also hinted at that before Marzia, he was with Chiara. No sign of a boyfriend anywhere. No sign even of some brotherly male friend to whom he might feel unconsciously attracted.
Elio enjoyed his first sexual experience with Marzia, we hear him cry out “That feels so good!” He then starts an affair with Oliver, but nothing suggests that he likes it any better. Yes, he keeps sleeping with him, not with her; but she didn’t manipulate him for weeks into believing that without her he would be missing out, the way Oliver did.
If Oliver was a woman of 24 years who would seduce Elio, dragging him away from his girlfriend, and then dumping him to marry another guy, everybody would call her a heartless bitch. In this case, Elio’s supposed sexual awakening supersedes everything else. Which is probably the main reason why so many viewers insist that there was nothing wrong and unhealthy between them. The relationship between Elio and Oliver can’t have been sick and dysfunctional, because Elio apparently “needed to realize that he's gay (or bi).” Never mind that he was traumatized for life.
In the end, Elio is alone; Oliver has left him for good, and he can’t go back to Marzia. Had Oliver not interfered Elio might have missed out a nuance on his sexuality, but he wouldn't have had his heart broken, and he would have a girlfriend who is a sweet and kind girl, never manipulates him and even offers him friendship and comfort after he dumped her for no reason (after having taken her virginity no less).
Part 6: Elio Always Had a Choice.
Elio wasn’t forced to do anything. He sought Oliver out repeatedly and never actively said “no” to him, except for his heart-wrenching protest during the infamous peach scene. Maybe he wants Oliver to single him out being a victim of his own vanity; however, his personality is not explored enough for the viewer to come to a fair conclusion. We mostly see him react to Oliver, not act on his own.
Since the focus of the movie is on the Elio / Oliver relationship, the landscape the story takes place in is idyllic, the music is beautiful etc., as a viewer one can easily assume that Elio chose Oliver of out “love”. Did he?
Obsession is not love. When feelings for another person are so strong that there seems to be no escape, it doesn’t mean they are soulmates, that it’s fate or anything like that. Healthy love is a choice; love only exists in freedom. When one partner (or both) is in mental chains, his mind revolving around the other, something is very wrong.
I already wrote that while his character is manipulative, Oliver is not an actual predator. If the victim has the chance to escape and does not take it, there is a large part of responsibility on the latter’s part, too. It is not enough to say that Elio is “only a teenager”. At seventeen, a person knows what they are doing and what they want. They may not be aware of the implications and the consequences, but Oliver and Elio’s parents didn’t know either, so it’s useless to say that age makes the difference.
Part 7: Culture Clash.
Italy and Elio’s family welcome Oliver with open arms; they let him live in their house, let him do whatever he wants, invite him to come back next year, encourage his feelings for Elio. Oliver never opens up. He does not speak about his thoughts; he never mentions that he has a girlfriend at home. Only in the end we learn that his family seems to be very bigoted. Which is of course awful, but as a viewer I couldn’t feel sorry for him. This is something that in all fairness he should have told Elio from the start, before playing fast and loose with a young man who was obviously smitten with him.
Oliver is a consumerist, diametrically opposed to the deep soul of Elio, a young man who grew up surrounded by nature, in a house and near cities that feel timeless. Oliver tells Elio once that his family had welcomed him like he was a son-in-law, but this only shows that Oliver has no clue about Italian mentality; else he would know that it is second nature to most Italians to be welcoming and to make acquaintances part of the family quickly. That he believes they did so specifically with him only reflects his arrogance.
On a side note: in Italy the paragraph against homosexuality fell in 1890, and this movie is set almost a century later. And Oliver was introduced to an elderly gay couple who are friends of the family, emphasizing that Elio’s family doesn’t have the slightest issue with same-sex relationships. So, we are not speaking of star-crossed lovers. Had he wanted to, Oliver could have moved to Italy leaving his bigoted background behind, finding both a better family and a partner who would do anything in his power to make him happy. But that would also have meant having to give up on something, and Oliver is not the kind of person who would accept any kind of sacrifice, not even for his own sake. He will rather see to it that the price for his choices is paid by someone else.
Part 8: Attitude Towards Females.
The way both Oliver and Elio treat the women in their lives is downright awful. Oliver flirts with Chiara and in return, Elio soon brags how he “almost had sex with Marzia”. It is clear enough that they only do it when the other is watching; they do not care about the girls, both only want to show off their sex lives.
Sex has no real value for Oliver; he tells Elio that he should better “try and fail with Marzia than not try at all”. He does not consider that having your first time and be in an actual relationship is serious stuff. It ought to be something two people do together, not a challenge of sorts.
Although with Marzia it’s the first time for both of them, Elio obviously does not care for her - he did not even recognize her voice on the phone and did not react when she told him she didn’t want to suffer because of him. His next thought is that he wants Oliver, not her. He even has sex with Marzia all the while watching the clock for the appointment at midnight Oliver gave him. (What for, anyway? Distraction? As a training object?) His obsession with Oliver makes him selfish and false. And Oliver has tied his invitation to another insult, “Grow up.” Elio is seventeen and he has sex with both a female and a male within the course of 24 hours. Why - out of pique, to prove Oliver that he is indeed grown-up and that he is not ‘too scared to do it’?
Oliver does not offer Elio or his family friendship; he does not even call or write a postcard from his home to let them know that he came back home safely. Ironically, it is Marzia who offers her friendship and comforts the heartbroken Elio, although she would have every reason to resent him. She is more mature and responsible than both Elio and Oliver although she is Elio’s age. Which makes his behaviour towards her only feel more unfair; but I guess viewers must expect her to accept that because what she and Elio shared was not the alleged “true love” he had with Oliver.
A few months after Oliver went back home, we learn that he is about to hurt the next person - a woman with whom he will start a loveless marriage. (We learn that he was in an on-off relationship with her for years, which fits the picture perfectly; Oliver would not want to miss out on anything.)
Elio’s father gives a monologue that reflects his marriage in an awful way: apparently it does not make him happy because it makes him feel like he missed out on the experience of “real love” (whatever he believes that is). His wife is a good person and a good mother and does not deserve to be dismissed like that.
Conclusion: This Is Not a Love Story.
There may be different ways of interpreting it, but this movie is not about love, i.e. honest, deep feelings and commitment for one another. It isn’t romantic or poetic or tragic. It’s about a lot of pain that could have been avoided.
Oliver is not a groomer who takes advantage of a younger and less experienced guy. If Elio was a few years older, Oliver would still be a bad person. Consider that no one seems to realize what an egotist he is, including the many adults he meets! Piqued by Elio’s resistance, Oliver would certainly still try to make a pass at Elio, except that if the latter was older, he would be more mature, and possibly also have, by now, a secure attachment with Marzia (or someone else). I do think that a relationship between a 17-year-old and a 24-year-old could work well, provided both are honest and loyal persons. What makes this story problematic is not grooming or sexual predation on Oliver’s part. It is the relationship itself between these two that is utterly dysfunctional; which is, I daresay, what actually makes so many viewers feel uneasy about it the way I did.
Real love looks different; it does not only leave pain and “what if”s behind. Oliver sweeps into a foreign family and culture like a storm, takes what he can, and after him the deluge. While Elio is changed for life, Oliver just runs off to the next best thing, still not ready to change, take responsibility, or at least apologize for having used a younger man for an affair before agreeing to a socially acceptable marriage with a woman.
The musical theme of the movie is “Mystery of Love”. Why? Fantasizing about someone you never really get to know because they never open up to you is not love. How can there be love without honesty, loyalty and trust? Elio never grows beyond the first phase of a romantic relationship where you still idealize the other, instead of seeing them for how they truly are. And Oliver doesn’t even reach that phase.
We are supposed to feel for Oliver and Elio them because they are “star crossed”; I can’t bring myself to do that. Oliver is too immature to be honest with Elio and to keep him at arm’s length to prevent him from hurt; while Elio is not grown and strong enough to stand up first for his own self-love, and then for his feelings for Oliver. He does not even confront him when he tells him he is about to get married (which also implies that he will not come back). Not for one moment seems Elio to realize that he was betrayed, used and dumped. Instead, he keeps believing that he missed out on something that could have been wonderful.
If you are in a problematic relationship, there are only two options: either you renounce because you don’t want to make the other unhappy, or you fight for your love. Nurturing false hopes, allowing love to make its way into the heart of a naïve, well-meaning young person and then let him fall like a hot potato is the last thing anyone ought to do. Oliver doesn’t trust anyone, while Elio’s trust in him, after his initial hesitation, is infinite.
When Oliver tells Elio on the phone that he forgot nothing, it only makes Elio suffer more. A mature, caring person could have told his former lover to get over him, and that he was grateful for the time passed together. There is not gratitude in Oliver’s words; he ties Elio to him again, knowing that the younger man would be his at the lift of a finger. During the phone call, he does not even have the politeness to ask how everybody is doing. As usual, it is all about him. Oliver may be the victim of his family’s bigotry, but I cannot bring myself to feel with someone who is so utterly selfish and irresponsible. At least now that it's clear that he’s not coming back, he should have the decency to let go.
It is certainly true - as Elio’s father said - that it’s better to accept one’s pain than to turn away from it. But: the easiest way to unhappiness is holding on to something (or someone) you can’t have, respectively that never existed in the first place. Elio never gets over his feelings and they make him suffer still decades later, proving that the brief happiness was not worth the pain. What Elio feels at the end is not the normal heartache everybody goes through after a break-up: he’s traumatized because his budding personality was crushed and he has nothing to hold on to or to look forward anymore.
I wonder why this movie is called a love story. There is mutual attraction, fascination, erotic tension, but all of this doesn’t add to love. I see no reason why anyone should love someone like Oliver, and I can’t understand why Oliver does not love Elio back, who shared everything he was with him.
I have come across the argumentation that “first love always ends badly”. Apart from the fact that I know some happy couples who were each other’s first loves, it’s an incredibly poor excuse. No one has the right to violate someone’s feelings and even his individuality and to expect them to bear it, shrugging “Oh well, this was meant to end badly anyway.” Badly for whom? Oliver doesn’t seem to suffer at all. He leaves all the pain to Elio.
This movie may be interesting, but in my opinion it’s not romantic at all and I see no reason to sigh and wax poetic about it like 95 % of the audience seems to. If anything, it’s a warning to not confuse obsession and idealization with actual caring.
I wonder why the LGBT+ community does not hate this movie.
I have often heard in conservative circles that gay men are supposedly straight until they meet someone who is older and experienced who seduces them and “makes them gay”. I always found this to be a narrow-minded prejudice, and thought that any queer person must find such an idea insulting to say the least. But this is exactly what is being portrayed here. And almost no viewer, queer or straight, seems to have the slightest problem with it. On the contrary, almost everybody gushes on how romantic this story is.
~ * ~ * ~ *
Red, White and Royal Blue (2023)
Of course, this is a modern fairy tale and it’s set in an alternative universe. Let me just point out the differences to the above-mentioned movie, and why this is a much more genuine portrayal of romantic love.
Since the story is about the son of a female US president who is running for her second term and the offspring of a conservative British peerage family, the conflict goes without saying; there is no wondering about what is making their relationship difficult.
Alex, once in a same-sex relationship, embraces his bisexuality wholeheartedly. He does not fall into a crisis and does not mess around with some girl. He knows that Henry is who he wants. It is abundantly clear that Henry is special for him because with him he’s head over heels in love, not because he’s the first guy he makes sexual experiences with.
In this movie there is also a cultural clash between a Texan American and a British peer, but there is nothing offensive about it; usually it’s just played for fun, like when Alex doesn’t know what a maypole is and Henry teases him about it.
How much wiser and more to the point is Ellen’s reaction: she simply tells her son that “such a relationship will define his life”. Yes, it’s kind of embarrassing that she asks him whether they used protection, but at least it shows that she cares for his safety.
Side note: all women in this movie are treated with respect, not looked down upon, used and discarded.
Alex does not make Henry feel bad about his accomplishments. He admires him playing polo, he loves listening to him when he plays the piano, although Alex can do neither.
When Henry comes to visit Alex in Texas, he adapts by wearing casual clothing, drinking, singing, playing, swimming. He’s just himself and there is nothing of his usual detachment about him, on the contrary, he obviously feels happy with the chance to just be a young man like any other. Compare this to Oliver’s attitude of haughty superiority in his host’s place, behaving like he was a prince everyone must look up to (which he isn’t, contrarily to Henry).
These men are both adults who know what they are doing; none shows off as being superior and they never come across as selfish and mean. Initially Henry is detached and stiff-necked, while Alex pettily takes offense at something that happened years earlier; but all of that quickly changes through the dynamics between them. The two young men open up, become more relaxed and much more themselves through being together. Since they started as rivals, they know each other’s faults and never for a moment fall into the trap of idealization. Their connection is much more genuine and intimate than Oliver’s and Elio’s although technically, they spend less time together.
Their relationship is also much more fun; Alex and Henry banter, tease one another and laugh a lot. Being in a long-distance relationship they write each other e-mails and texts, and they have conversations over the phone still when they’re barely friends. They talk about personal issues, they keep eye contact, their hands touch, they hug outside of sexual contact, they sleep in the same bed whenever they can. The power dynamics between them are healthy, and it is made abundantly clear that the basis for their relationship is honest, trusting friendship.
Shortly after having started an actual relationship with Henry, Alex plunges into his Texas campaign; he wants to use his influence as the president’s son to do good for other people. Henry’s philanthropic work and his overall influence inspire Alex to do more for his fellowmen, too.
When Henry panics and runs in the face of a declaration of love, Alex confronts him right away. Alex is willing to fight for his love. He „flies across an ocean and storms a f…ing palace“, in his words, to tell Henry he won’t give up on him.
As they say goodbye at the airport both gift one another what means most to them - ring and key. Alex until then never took his key chain off, not even when he was swimming or having sex. Alex’s last virtue is patience, yet he is willing to wait.
In the end the shy, introverted Henry says, “I will no longer be the prince of shame and secrets” finally confronting his worst fear, that his subjects may no longer like him.
Which is where we reach the bottom line.
„Real love“ is not defined by how deep, desperate and or romantic your feelings are.
Real love brings out what is best in a person, makes them better, stronger and more mature.
Red, White and Royal Blue is an actual, real and inspiring love story. Call Me by Your Name is a slap in the face.
Do I have a “problem” with making every same-sex intimate relationship or deep friendship I observe and engage in in TV art/entertainment romantic? Yes, I do.
However… I don’t see the “problem” in doing that.
Meaning: I don’t see why it’s a “problem” that it can be interpreted as romantic just because it’s intimate and deep. I don’t believe it being interpreted as a romantic relationship changes what that relationship already is.
I think it’s sad that people look at romance in that way to be honest. I especially think it’s even sadder when it’s real life. Like how longtime friends seem to have that perspective when they feel like they’re falling in love with each other. That if they lean into those feelings, it can or will reduce their friendship so there’s this need for it to remain platonic because involving romance would ruin it for them. Ruin their friendship.
Nope. Don’t see it that way. Never have. And I don’t ever think that’s a problem with romance. I think that’s a problem with people that devalue what “romance” is because the examples to draw from are disappointing. Such as what they may see in TV art/entertainment.
As for the “same-sex” aspect to it. It never seems to be a problem that it’s interpreted or read or assumed as a romantic relationship when it’s opposite-sex instead.
So why ever should it ever be if it’s same-sex?
WLW or MLM specifically?
I value platonic relationships too. But the thing is is that if I genuinely believe that it works or looks better as romantic, then I don’t understand why it’s a “problem”that I no longer think or believe of it as platonic because I don’t understand how it suddenly being thought of as romantic negates it being a beautiful, authentic, serious and compelling relationship. In fact I think that it makes it more of all of that, not less than. I think rather the questions that need to be asked when it comes to this is: Does it make sense? Does it feel more authentic? Is the storytelling working better with it being this way? Are the character representation and development arcs for the characters thriving because of it being this way?
If the answer is “yes”, then why is it ever a problem?
This is internalized homo/queerphobia. This is an internalized perspective that even when a same-sex relationship looks or feels right deep down, it still looks or feels wrong on the surface rather than the other way around. This is something you’ve only been taught to see and believe as “wrong” because it’s not opposite-sex. You should look into it because there is nothing wrong with it being gay or queer or with it not being heterosexual. If there is nothing ever wrong for you with romance and love between straight characters, then there is nothing wrong with romance and love between gay or queer characters. Love in general is not wrong.
What’s wrong is that preconceived judgement when it comes to the loving relationships represented in TV art/entertainment between characters cannot be validated as romance just because those characters are same-sex but it’s perfectly fine when they are opposite-sex.
There’s never any “problem” with it being romantic over platonic when it’s a MLF. But not WLW or MLM. Or indeed… anything polyamorous/polygamous. Why?
It’s either fully conscious externalized homophobia and queerphobia or unconscious internalized homophobia and queerphobia. I only have sympathy for the latter.
But my sympathy can only go so far. Sort your shit out.
If you can’t, then don’t bother interacting with me again. You know who you are. This is your only warning. I won’t tolerate any negative vibes when it comes to this because I will just assume you’re being a dick because I can make assumptions too and claim that I am 100% right about what I don’t have enough legitimate information on. I mean I can, but I’ll try not to. I’ll try to give the benefit of the doubt and believe that you’re simply just misinformed or poorly educated.
That’s the difference. Internalized homo/queerphobia isn’t a crime. But it does need to be acknowledged and addressed and I only have time for people who want to do that as opposed to people only using it as a weapon.
Netflix has recently decided to push transgender ideologies in their Babysitters Club series – a show directed at adolescent girls. While Netflix – an independent company that should only have to answer to itself and its shareholders – is perfectly within their rights to air such shows, the fact remains that this is a deeply damaging topic to be showcasing to the most vulnerable and malleable among us. I think it’s time we finally address the enormous elephant in the room: the LGBT community. Here I will break down my thoughts on their rights, their roles, and their realities in our society.
For much of history, there have been documented incidences of same-sex encounters. Even the Bible makes reference to same-sex relations numerous times. The word sodomy is actually originated from one such text from Genesis in reference to the city of Sodom. Shakespeare is even rumored to have been gay by some scholars. However, for most of human existence, these individuals were forced to live in secret – outcasts of society, ostracized by their own people. To be perfectly fair, religious extremism has only contributed to the past 2-4 thousand years of ridicule. Before that, it was still frowned upon (at best) by most cultures simply because it went against the laws of nature. Male and female animals and even plant parts reproduce in union with one another. There are no same-sex reproductive organisms to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). There are asexual organisms that reproduce by themselves, but certainly no major animal species that reproduce in any extraordinary way. There is a certain species of bird, I believe, that lives in Hawaii (once again, correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes chooses a same-sex partner for life in the absence of a proper mate, but this is certainly an exception, not a rule. To add, they do not reproduce together.
But what does all this mean for humans? How should the “laws of nature” or even God’s laws apply to humans in this age of constant progressivism and an increasing detachment from religiosity that we call secularism? Well, thankfully, in our country and many around the world we are allowed the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. So, if someone chooses to live outside the bounds of religious or natural laws, they certainly should be allowed to, as long as they are minding their own business. This concept of allowing homosexuality was highly contested up until the late 20th century, and is still somewhat contested today in 2020. The original founders felt that upholding moral and ethical truths in our school systems were an integral part of maintaining our precious union. As a matter of fact, the often-misrepresented “separation of church and state” clause did not mean that religion could not be learned about in schools, but that the federal government had no right to establish a State religion (capital S). Most of the founders actually encouraged religious teachings and values in schools. The more modern interpretations of the separation of church and state are due to an influx of not only secular ideologies, but also religious beliefs that were not prevalent during the time of our founding. While I am a firm believer that no harm can come from learning about religious values in schools, in this age of progressivism it is reasonable to note that certain contentious religious principles need not be forced upon others. This would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.
So, to get specific, let’s talk homosexuality. A common misconception in the eyes of secularists is that the Church (I’ll speak specifically about Catholicism here) preaches that homosexuality is a sin – that simply being gay is a sin against God. Well, this isn’t true. The Church expressly teaches that acting out homosexual fantasies is a sin. Let’s say, you are a man who is attracted to other men, but in your devotion to your religion, you find a woman whom you love, marry her, and live your life without having sex with another man. Is this man sinful, because he finds men attractive? Of course he is not! When you feel like strangling someone, but then you calm down and don’t, are you guilty of murder? No. So, simply being gay is not a sentence to Hell. As a matter of fact, even in the eyes of the Church, acting on your homosexual impulses isn’t a death sentence. There is reconciliation and forgiveness in the eyes of the Lord. If you confess your sin and repent for it, you are seen as forgiven. Not to mention, there are people who sin in every aspect of life: liars, swindlers, thieves, murderers – and I’m not even just talking about big sins. Small sins add up, and if you are not repentant of them, you are not any more likely to get to Heaven. However, I will paraphrase this, but I believe there is a Scripture saying that says you will be judged by your worst qualities. So, if you work hard your whole life to be a good Christian, and your only flaw is that you are a wonton whore, a light will be shown on this most vulnerable area.
You might be thinking to yourself, “but it’s a genetic mutation that causes some people to like members of the same sex. God would not have built natural urges in us if he didn’t want us to act on them.” Well, that’s just ridiculous. We have natural urges and desires that are built into us that we are meant to fight off all the time: anger, greed, and jealousy to name a few. Lust is just one more urge that is built into our nature, and it happens to come in all shapes and sizes. Our animalistic desire is not only to have as much sex as possible, but to have it with as many things as possible. Evidence of this is your dog, if you have one. Dogs will regularly hump humans due to a natural urge they have. Should the dog be doing this? Should humans all of a sudden be accepting of bestiality? Maybe don’t answer that one. Now that I’ve gotten a bit off topic, I’ll try to bring this all back. Yes, acting on your homosexual desires is a sin in many Christian churches. However, your homosexuality does nothing to harm me or my church, and as such, I believe firmly that if you wish you act on those temptations, you should be legally allowed to.
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual peoples should not be deprived of their right to happiness, which can include uniting themselves in lawful union. That being said, I would like to advocate for an alteration in the name of the union. With the full rights, advantages and privileges of a married male and female couple, I would like to revoke the name “gay marriage” and return to the previously used “civil union” terminology. Marriage is a religious term that has been secularized over decades to include all unions whether inside or outside of a church between a man and a woman. I propose that all unions made outside of the boundaries of a religious ceremony be labeled civil unions, reserving the term marriage to those unions made within the boundaries of a religious ceremony. Civil unions will differ from Marriages in name only as to lay to rest the disagreements of many over this divisive issue. Thus, men and women, women and women, and men and men united solely by a judge will no longer be “married” but “united”. Those churches that allow gay marriages in their communities are by no means precluded from including them or precluded from calling them whatever they wish. However, legally, in the eyes of the state, a same-sex couple “married” in their churches will be viewed as “united” under the law. This is a semantic issue, as opposed to a legal issue. The semantics are clearly important on this issue and have been increasingly becoming more important as time goes on. I may not feel it is right to legally prevent people from enjoying their lives in whatever manners they please, but I do feel it is within my purview to define terms in order to ease tensions.
With regards to the transgender community, I have immense sympathy and respect for your feelings. Feeling like you don’t fit into the gender roles that your biology dictates can be frustrating, confusing and upsetting. I know. During my high school years, I often noted to myself that I had feminine characteristics that I didn’t understand. In some ways, I felt that I didn’t share many of the masculine interests of my friends. However, because I was surrounded by many fine men who were very accepting of my differences, I never felt that I didn’t belong with them. Here is the reality of the situation. Many people are not surrounded by these positive influences, and thereby feel that they need to re-identify themselves in order to fit into their social environments. This is not the case. Acceptance, toleration and understanding are the keys to solving this problem. Our attention with regard to the gender debate should be redirected towards Gender Stereotypes. At one point, I was under the impression that we were heading in the right direction. In a very enlightening high school class, I was challenged to think about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. When I did this, I came up with many gender stereotypes that not only did not describe many of my peers, but also did not describe myself. Instead of concluding that I did not belong to my gender, however, I concluded that the stereotypes were the crux of the inconsistencies. At one point in history, gender roles were necessary for survival – the strong (men) went on the hunt, and the tender (women) cared for the children. They were important distinctions. This is not the case anymore! Over time, as technology and society developed to the point where strict gender roles were no longer necessary, women’s rights and roles in society began to change. This was a good thing and is a testament to how incredible our society has been for the less advantaged. These roles still play a part in our daily lives and still affect who we are, but they do not define us exclusively. Take Apples for example. The stereotype of an Apple is a red, juicy, sweet fruit. However, there are apples that are yellow, juicy and sweet. There are also apples that are green, juicy and tart. Is the yellow apple a mango now? Is the green apple a lime? No, their genetics limit them to the fruitful existence that they are. Nevertheless, biology dictates what type of fruit they are and not their characteristics; their characteristics don’t change the underlying biology.
To solve the issue of gender, some people on the progressive aisle have attempted to remove gender. I instead propose to remove the stereotypes/roles! This of course leads to inconsistencies in the Pride movement as a whole. For example, an exclusively lesbian woman might marry another woman who decides later that she is a man. Is this first woman heterosexual now, or should she be upset and betrayed and break off the marriage? Are you confused yet? This removal of gender is not only confusing to adults, but it’s confusing to children, and for them, it is dangerous. When you pose a child with the option to choose his/her gender identity, they will ask you what the differences are. Your response will undoubtedly be gender stereotypes. You are doing no one any favors by perpetuating these gender roles. The child will treat this as something fun, like a game. However, once you begin to treat it as something serious, the child will begin to treat it seriously. This is what major networks and schools and parents are beginning to do. Once you begin to treat your child as if they are not their biological sex, they will begin to accept that reality, more so to please you than anything else. This could have unimaginable consequences on their sense of self later in life, which could lead to self-esteem issues, learning disabilities, depression or worse. And making life-altering changes to your children i.e. long-term gender therapy, hormone treatments, or surgeries could permanently hurt them mentally and physically.
Conversely, if your little boy tells you one day that he is a girl, tell him, “No, you’re not a girl, you’re a boy. As a boy, you can be whoever you want to be, like whatever you want to like, and all of those characteristics will make you who you are.” If you tell your little boy that, there is an increased likelihood that he will have a more accepting view of others who are different from him, and will have a more positive outlook of himself. You can be a man who loves to sew, wear frilly clothing, and fixes his own car. You can be a woman who lifts weights, works on a construction site, and watches soap operas. They are not mutually exclusive. This also includes those members of our communities that wish to fully engage in their historical gendered roles. Women, who want nothing but to read, write, sew, be homemakers, and do the multitude of other activities that are considered feminine, should not be shamed into thinking that their choices are not valuable, are backwards, or are in anyway damaging to womanhood. Women who have no interest in science should not be shamed into believing that their lives are a waste and that they are giving in to the patriarchal oppression of women. This is not productive. Similarly, this standard applies to men, who should not be shamed into thinking that jobs that only use their hands are not worthy of respect because they do not require a college education. They should not be shamed into the common misconception that men are brutes, only caring about power and control. Men who are not interested in fashion design or cleaning are not uncreative or lazy. All humans have different interests and strengths.
The characteristics we have as human beings are largely taught to us. Generosity is taught, openness is taught. Negative things, as well: greed, sloth – they are learned. Selfishness is a learned characteristic. As a society, we have failed our younger generations. Parents, teachers, the government, and the media have all failed. To teach a child that they are so important that they have the ability to defy nature and choose their gender breeds self-centeredness and pride beyond compare. How selfish of us, how pompous! We are not that important. We are not able to create our own meaning. Our meaning is a gift bestowed upon us by a higher power. Who or what that higher power is, is for each and every man and woman to decide on their own, but a society based on the premise that they determine their own worth is doomed to fail because it is founded on the ideal that the self is the most important entity. This is not to contradict our founding principles concerning the individual. Those principles concern how government should act in relation to its people. The concept of self-importance, to which I’m referring, concerns how individuals view themselves and act in spite of the government.
So, no, I don’t think that Netflix or schools should be teaching students, especially against the wills of their parents, that being a boy when you’re a girl or vice versa is acceptable. We should not be teaching children that biology can just be ignored. If we allowed this aspect of biology to be ignored, other aspects of biology may be ignored in the future (like age!). Nor do I think that sexual preference should be celebrated in public schools. This goes against the separation of church and state in a different manner, because teaching children that their religious observances of sin are incorrect is a direct interference with the practice of a religion. This would be a world where secularism becomes the state religion and that would be no more acceptable than some form of theism. Have no shame for who you are, but don’t put down other peoples’ views to make yourself feel better. Respect should be taught of all our children before they leave the home for school.
Here is my final message. Acceptance of self, love of one another, and understanding of our differences, should reign supreme.
Botswana Decriminalizes Homosexuality in Landmark Ruling
In a landmark decision on Tuesday, June 11 Botswana’s High Court overturned the laws criminalizing same-sex relations in the country. Three judges ruled unanimously to revoke the laws. Judge Michael Leburu said as he delivered the verdict, “Human dignity is harmed when minority groups are marginalized.” LGBTQ advocates packed the courthouse in Gaborone, the capital and were overjoyed to hear the verdict. According to the New York Times, Anna Mmolai-Chalmers, chief executive of the gay rights group said, We still can’t believe what has happened. We’ve been fighting for so long, and within three hours your life changes.”
The ruling struck down section 164 of Botswana’s Penal Code which stated that “carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” could carry a maximum sentence of seven years. Section 167, also struck down, made public or private acts of “gross indecency” punishable by up to two years in prison. These laws date back to the 1800s during British colonial rule of Botswana (then Bechuanaland). The laws criminalizing homosexuality were challenged by Letsweletse Motshidiemang (L.M. in court papers), a student at the University of Botswana. L.M. argued that homosexuality was now more widely accepted. These arguments came after some successes for LGBTQ rights in the country. IN 2010 it became illegal for employees to be terminated on the basis of sexual orientation and in 2017 two rulings made it easier for transgender people to change their gender of legal documents.
This is a major victory for LGBTQ rights in Africa, where homosexuality remains taboo. Over 30 African countries have laws making it illegal to have gay sex and in some places, the punishment can be death or life in prison. While attempts to further criminalize homosexuality exist they are matched by progressive victories such as that in Botswana.
