mind telling me how a movie about faggot cowboys who ruin their family appeals to straights?
Well I'm the one who put it there on the chart, and I've never actually seen the movie.
The reasoning is that the more heavily oppression narratives feature, the more it'll appeal to a straight prog audience than gays who—I assume—probably just want to see gay stuff happen.
It occurs to me that there's no reason to assume that this is the case for a majority of gays, though. My original point with the chart was just that without sex or oppression narratives, there's nothing identifiably gay about a gay story.
Wouldn't call it comedy either so the bottom left corner of the triangle?
A "buddy drama" would also fit in the right bottom corner; I'm talking about the dynamics mainly.
Such is life. Total depravity or mythopoetic buddy comedy.
That's the best thing about genuinely gay lit, it's realist and representative of a contemporary or historical reality (or speculates in a certain way, almost all of the Weird and Speculative fiction writers are fags), and queers and women don't like or relate to it. You know who does
I'm not sure that I do; I'm not really sure what "Weird and Speculative fiction" you're referring to. It's possible that I know what you mean, but can you elaborate?
I'm also not sure what the distinction you're drawing between "queers" and "fags" is. Are "queers" straight they/thems, while "fags" are the "real gays"?
The best I can parse is that you might mean that "queers" and women don't understand the mythopoetic buddy comedy, while "fags" are drawn to this (even if typically in incestuous depictions).
and I want to see your opinion because you're more of an esoteric philosopher than the usual homophobe, straight guys. The kind who read fiction, which is a very different type of person all around, but still.
I'll do what I can. I believe I went into depth on the subject you're asking about earlier in the thread: my position is that—on one level—sexual fetishism is religious and mystical psychology collapsed into the lizard-brain so that it can have a shallow half-life under our contemporary materialist slave-paradigm.
Sex is only the "ultimate act" in a paradigm with no contact with a transcendent source of life-power.
Beyond the materialist slave-level, it makes sense for the powers that be to acclimate people to this way of understanding sex because it's actually the same general understanding of sex as is seen in the sorcery that they use—the difference being that in sorcery, the ritualism is no longer understood as empty and innefectual beyond the psyche. You could call it a form of recruitment for those who figure it out (but who probably haven't yet noticed the annihilationist ethos undergirding that superstructure—they'll be let in on that once they've marinated enough in the subtext to be cool with it).
Essentialy, the "fags" you describe don't really want a husband or male-wife (despite what roles they may put on); what they really want are fellow initiates.
Gays will say that women are bad at sex and romance, but that's impossible; women define sex and romance: you can define "romance" as "the border and permeable membrane between men and women". Women can't be bad at something that they are the boundary of; it'd be like saying that lakes and oceans are bad at beaches. Compared to what? You dumping sand in your living room? That has properties of a beach, but it's not a beach.
The fraternal erotic (not in a necedsarily sexual sense) drama is an
initiatory drama. It's all about mutual initiatory struggle. How that plays out just depends on what you're being initiated into, but the underlying uniative psychology is the same. It's all about some kind of agonistic transformative experience undergone together, or done by one to the other.
There's a lot of homosocial, romantic and even sexual behavior that, because I despise queer theory, I find to be heteronormative.
This is very confusingly phrased, but I think you're saying that queer theory weirdos are claiming normal aspects of the human experience as part of their territory—redefining the desire to be close to or "know" a member of the same sex as "homoromanticism", for example.
It's not-straight, but the contemporary hetero/bi/homo distinctions don't account for it.
If there's blood flowing downstairs, it's gay. Everything else is straight. Weird, maybe, but straight.
I bring it up because there's often a labeled and explicated distinction made about maleness and what is gay that recognizes marginal outliers who are straight---as men and not-gay---where the mainstream societal onus has abjected all of it. You could call it a perversion of fraternity, but descriptively speaking, expressions of fraternity include and may be the definition of this behavior. Nohomo.
I don't know what behaviors you're referring to. Could you elaborate?
