Male relationships

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Ok, I started this thread in the Gabriel Knight forum, but I thought it would also be very interesting here, especially in the light of the now-popular "Bet you didn't see THIS coming!" thread. Note that it's exactly as it was written for that board, hence some forum references maynot apply here.

****
Because of the infamous scene where Von Glower caresses Gabriel's hair in GK2 (which has led to, no offense, quite ridiculous and jumpy conclusions, as I'll discuss in the rest of this post), and despite the fact that because of that this topic has been discussed to death here already (not that I can find a thread about it, mind you), I thought this would be a nice place to share my thoughts (and read other opinions) about the whole topic of non-homossexual male relationships, also known as "male bonding".

I first started really thinking about it when I read Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire". Those who have read the book (NOT seen the film) will notice the interesting relationship between characters. Maybe it's because they aren't human, but the fact is they don't "love" as we know it. They have some deeper (and colder, most times) affections. For the purposes of the discussion, I'll focus on Louis and Armand. Especially Armand, naturally. He feels genuine affection and love for Louis. But these beings have no sexual nature, thus leading to a "purer" love (i.e., untainted by sexual desires). Mrs. Rice shaped their relationship very carefully, and was sucessfull, methinks.

This is what first made me think of it. It's interesting to see how some times, so many times, males "bond". Of course it stands to reason that members of the same sex should do it... but it's more than that. I don't think female bonding is as "strong" as male bonding, for whatever reason. There's nothing remotely sexual about it, just plain simple love - and a camaraderie which is very hard to explain. Maybe it all goes back to our deeper baser instincts - to use GK2's imagery, the lone wolves hunting through the night, sharing experiences the others could only dream off, and being bonded by them.

I don't believe anything in GK2 is even remotely homosexual, or homoerotic. I think Von Glower truly desired a soul-mate, and that's what he was sure he had found in Gabriel. Now chew on this: why did that single briefest of scenes make such a ripple and caused so many to think in terms of homosexuality? I feel it's an offense. Not that I think homosexuality is bad, per se, but looking at ANY scene as simple as that and jumping to the conclusion that the characters involved are sexually atracted (which is, in my personal view, a bit of a "taint" - I think the sexual physical desires override the deepest affection, most times, and even in the times when it just complements it it was never the deciding factor) is... well, a bit of a stretch.

Does anyone know the play "Scooter Thomas Makes It to the Top of the World", by Peter Parnell? It's about two boys, Scooter Thomas and Dennis Wright, growing up. Essentially. And losing the bond they had. For some reason, a lot of people read "gay" in that play, which I find quite hard to believe. I've read some other plays of Mr. Parnell, and read Scooter Thomas about 100 times (possibly more, and no, I am not exagerating), and I myself find NO homosexuality in there at all - simply a deep and touching friendship between two very different boys who eventually go their diferent ways and being the poorer for it.

Come to think of it, males in general "jump" to conclusions of sexual nature much more often. It's a bigger deal for us than females. Yet I still think this kind of non-sexual bonding is very particular to us. Strange and interesting.

One more example before I go. I saw one the most touching scenes ever in "Helena of Troy". For those who don't know about the story of Troy, basically it happened because the Greek ruler Menelau's wife, Helena, ran away with the trojan Páris of the Trojan royal household. In one scene, Menelau and Páris (Portuguese spelling) duel, together, just the two of them. So far so good. But Menelaus' brother, Agamémnon, had poisened Páris. Not fatally, but enough to make him very tired and fight quite badly. Until the poison takes hold, the duel progresses honorably and without incident. But after that (a time when they're away from the eyes of the crowd), Páris gets so tired his swings are laughable. Menelau notices this gradually - it's a beauty to see him firecely defending Páris' desperation-driven attacks, then not so fiercely and looking somewhat confsed, then finally understanding and making token attempts to defend himself from a sword wielded by the tired arm of a tired man. What does he do? He brings them into shelter, where they rest and talk about the whole mess, about Helena, about their love, about the woman, about the war, about the betrayal, about everything. When they stand up, they might as well have been long time friends.

I saw this with several other people - this was in the time we were preparing to, in our acting course, play Sartre's adaptation of Eurípedes' "The Trojans". One of my female friends commented, "Amazing. If they had been women, they'd have been at each other's throats".

Well... if you haven't seen this a thousand times, reply.
****

If anyone's interested in the feedback this gets on the other forum,
http://community.vugames.com/WebX?14@28.xl3xelokhcM.7547362@.1dd95c13

[Meowster]

Have you seen The Producers? I'm not sure if Leo was gay or what, but their relationship was really, really sweet. I know it was a comedy, but I found their friendship touching.

I don't think Leo was supposed to be gay, at least. I guess he did come across as a little sexually insecure at certain points. But what he had for Max seemed to be a real love. The only time it seemed a little sexual was when Leo started stroking his jacket while apologising to Max at the end... I seriously thought they were going to kiss.

Anyway, I don't understand the controversy. It seems completely trivial. To me, anyway. I haven't played Gabriel Knight though.

[TerranRich]

I've only played GK3, so I can't comment on that, but I know from my own experiences that, yes, males do often resort to accusations of homosexuality as an outward sign of personal insecurity. My best friend, Todd, and I have been friends for about 10 years now, and we consider each other the brother we each never had. We even joke around homosexually, mainly to freak out a girl he likes, out of pure fun. (For example, we'll talk about how we're going to "have fun with each other tonight" and then his female friend will We're very secure about our sexuality (both very straight) and know each other too well to assume that the other one is really gay.

It's very rare to find another guy with whom you can bond, to such a depth that insecurities cease to exist.

[DragonRose]

I don't think it's that men bond more deeply than women- I think it's just that women form these bonds far more readily, and therefore they aren't as remarked upon.  I'm not a very social person, yet I know several women whose sentences I can finish and they'll finish mine, and whom I know as well as I know myself.  But it isn't remarkable because they're my "girlfriends."  However, it seems to me that guys have lots of casual friendships, and maybe one "the brother I never had" relationship.

Oh, and the people who seem to be reading too much into Gabe and Von Glower's relationship, aren't. In the book JJ expands on this to a point where there really isn't any doubt that Von Glower plays for both teams.

[Blackthorne]

One thing about The Vampire Chronicles male "love"....  people get into the mechanics of "deeper" love and all that crap, but the simple fact of the matter is that they are merely characters created by a woman - a human bound to it's own examples and feelings towards love.  Their sex is entirely inconsequential; it's merely a representation of Rice's feelings about relationships and attatchment.

Bt

[TheYak]

I don't think that male-bonding relationships are any deeper than that of females.  In fact, I think they're usually a lot more trivial, it's just that males showing affection for each other is so rare that the meager amount of comraderie equates to a significant bond.  I've seen a lot of life-long male friends that don't know much about the other guy except that he likes Beer, Football and video games.   I tend to avoid the shallow relationships in favor of more intimate ones (not sexually intimate as the word's connotation often is), forming equally strong life-long friendships with males and females alike. 

I don't actually *know* but my observations of female-female relationships leads me to believe there's far less difficulty in having physical intimacy (non-sexual) and talking about real emotion than with a male relationship.  I'm probably a bit biased here as I've done military service and a lot of security work.

[Pesty]

"I love you, man!" "And I love you, because I've learned that platonic love can exist between two grown men."

I wish more men would learn the lessons Wayne's World teaches.

Just because two people love each other doesn't mean they're in love with each other or that they want to have sex, no matter what gender they are. That's what a lot of people don't seem to understand. It's like society thinks you can't love someone unless you want a non-platonic relationship, most of the time a sexual one, with that person, and that's sad.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Blackthorne, are you saying that characters should never be taken at face value (ie, what the writer WROTE) but rather at some meta-character and meta-story level which includes the author's point? If not, I don't follow. If so, I disagree. A story is a story. While some stories have double meanings and deeper messages, every story should also be able to be taken at face value.

Dragonrose, could you quote some such incident in the book? I've read it many times, but don't remember any such times when Von Glower's ambiguity came into play.

[DGMacphee]

I like the relationship between Spongebob Squarepants and Patrick the Starfish. They hold hands... skip along the seabed... have buttsex... It's truly a special friendship they have...

EDIT: Also...

[Blackthorne]

Blackthorne, are you saying that characters should never be taken at face value (ie, what the writer WROTE) but rather at some meta-character and meta-story level which includes the author's point? If not, I don't follow. If so, I disagree. A story is a story. While some stories have double meanings and deeper messages, every story should also be able to be taken at face value.

Nah, I'm just saying the Ann Rice is full of uber-romantic shit, in the guise of being classy or "deep".  I mean, Mmenoch the Devil and The Vampire Armand sucked ass.

Bt

[Peter Thomas]

Erik, your argument doesn't quite make complete sense. Your're saying that every story/scene should be able to be taken at face value, and yet seem to also not like the fact that people are taking this scene from GKII at...amazingly...face value (in today's culture).

Seriously, if you walked out your front door to see two men stroking each others hair - what would you think? There are MUCH better ways to indicate platonic love between people, and as open as Terran is, I doubt he'd actually be touching his male friend like that PURELY to show his non-sexual affection.

I, personally, agree with DragonRose. If they didn't want that sort of ambiguity, they wouldn't have portrayed it like they did. It doesn't particularly BOTHER me whether he's gay or not, but I think if people want to assume that he's gay, they have as much right to do so as you do to say "No! NO! HE'S NOT! STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!"

And I also agree with Rose that men DON'T bond better than women. In fact, I think men in general are CRAP at bonding, which is why, when it happens, it gets so much publicity. Women bond 10 times quicker than most men, so it's considered 'commonplace'.

Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions, here?

mmm... sorry if that sounded a bit nit-picky or snobbish. I've got a pounding headache.

[DragonRose]

Rui: I misremembered.  It wasn't in the book. It was in an interview Jane Jensen did with JA+

Rabid Gabriel Knight fans have argued the sexual preferences of von Glower for years. Is there any validity to these rumors, or are the fans reading more into the character than you intended?

    Part of the interesting thing about werewolvery as a theme is that it's about primitive, carnal appetite. When I developed GK2, I was trying to express that in as many ways as I couldâ€"gluttony, drink, sexual appetiteâ€"a kind of voracious approach to life. In a word, hedonism. To me, von Glower was a character who was open to any and all forms of pleasure, though he had pretty refined tastes. And (to get blunt now) bisexuality implies an "anytime, anywhere, anyone" hyper-sexuality. That fit with the vision of the werewolf I had in mind. No morals, completely guided by instinct and desire.

[GarageGothic]

In my opinion, saying that Anne Rice's vampires have no sexual nature pretty much misses the whole point with her novels. Maybe sexual organs aren't involved (although I clearly remember a passage mentioning that Louis could feel some guys erection against his thigh while sucking his blood), but there's obviously a sensual and erotic dimension to the blood drinking, especially between vampires.
Also, you seem to think that homosexuality is purely sexual, and that a relationship between people of the same sex has to be sexual to be truly "gay". You can't deny the romantic aspect of Von Glowers wish to find a soulmate to run around with in the woods under the full moon. So, was Von Glower gay? He did have relationships with Ludwig, probably with Von Zell, and he acted very seductively towards Gabe. Also, he seemed to be attracted to masculine energies, searching for an equal.  Did he identify as gay? Probably not - although I do believe his "girlfriend" was mostly meant as bait for Gabriel. His approach to male/male relationships pre-dates the modern definition of "homosexuality" (ca. 1880) and is closer to the Byronic ideal of affection between men.

As for Jane Jensen's:

And (to get blunt now) bisexuality implies an "anytime, anywhere, anyone" hyper-sexuality.

Am I the only one who finds this just a little offensive?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

DISCLAIMER - Before I forget, I should hasten to add that everything I write is only my own opinion, unbacked by "documented proof", so to speak. Which doesn't mean it's thoughtless drivel, mind you, it's been subject of my relfection for some time.

Peter: Yes, taken at face value. No, I don't think that scene was, at face value, indicator of homosexuality. That was the only scene that could possibly indicate it, and it is quite flimsy evidence. In terms of the game alone (not going into any other example, because it depends a LOT on character and context) Von Glower was clearly fascinated with Gabriel in some way. He clearly admired him for some reason. He felt particularly close to him. He stroke Gabriel's hair. Maybe it's just me - considering the replies so far, I'm guessing it IS just me - but I don't see that as an indicator of homosexuality, simply of admiration and fascination and maybe love for another human being. Note I keep saying HOMOSEXUAL, not GAY.

GarageGothic: I'm saying HOMOSEXUAL, not GAY. I think no one is homosexual OR heterosexual until they've made their sexual choice, though everyone is theoretically predisposed to heterosexuality. I think the matter of love and affection is quite another matter. Frankly, I don't think "gays" and "straights" exist at all. It's simply a matter of who they take their sexual pleasure with. I'm not saying a gay CULTURE does not exist - it does. But I don't think anyone is BORN gay or straight, that's just words from a society that has decided to seperate those who couple with their own sex and those who do not. I hope I'm making sense, if I'm not tell me and I'll try to explain myself further.

Peter, again, and DragonRose: I'll now quote what I said in the other site, because it's appropriate.

In response to Almirena's "I don't believe that male bonding is stronger than female bonding"... it is true that I am very young still and have yet to have any sort of even remotely meaningful relationship (my social skills are quite non-existant), and so it must be pointed out that almost nothing of what I say is something I can back up with documented anything. It's simply what I feel, and the copious amount of times I've seen this in fiction (I know, I know, but fiction DOES imitate life. Stephen King put it best in Roland of Gilead's mouth in a Dark Tower book, and I misquote - to know a world best you learn of what it dreams) kinda supports it - but then, when it's our own opinions, EVERYTHING has a way of supporting it when it's US doing the thinking, that's quite true.

GG again: I tend to separate "sensuality and eroticism" from "sexuality". Meaning, I tend to see sex as fu****g. Anything else is NOT sex. It's love, or desire, or sensuality, or whatever, but sex itself is the act of fu****g. I should make that clear. With this in mind, you can probably understand my point of view regarding the vampires. Sensuality and eroticism are beautiful things that even have the power to enhance the pleasure in the sexual exercise. Raw sex is nothing, except maybe the primal beast in us. The vampires are, in that respect, beautiful things, because yes, they're very nature is sensual and erotic, but not sexual.

[EldKatt]

Note I keep saying HOMOSEXUAL, not GAY.

I thought those were synonyms.

Meaning, I tend to see sex as fu****g. Anything else is NOT sex. It's love, or desire, or sensuality, or whatever, but sex itself is the act of fu****g.

In other words, is a homosexual someone who specifically f***s people his/her own sex, no more, no less? I disagree, although this might just be a misinterpretation.

I haven't played GK2 and I haven't read anything by Ann Rice, so I can't comment on the relationship between Van Foo and Van Bar, but is there any reason we should not assume they're homosexual, other than generic homophobia-phobia?

[Paper Carnival]

Note I keep saying HOMOSEXUAL, not GAY.

I thought those were synonyms.

Meaning, I tend to see sex as fu****g. Anything else is NOT sex. It's love, or desire, or sensuality, or whatever, but sex itself is the act of fu****g.

In other words, is a homosexual someone who specifically f***s people his/her own sex, no more, no less?

I completely agree with this

[Snarky]

In my opinion, saying that Anne Rice's vampires have no sexual nature pretty much misses the whole point with her novels. Maybe sexual organs aren't involved (although I clearly remember a passage mentioning that Louis could feel some guys erection against his thigh while sucking his blood), but there's obviously a sensual and erotic dimension to the blood drinking, especially between vampires.

Yeah, Rice's vampires are all about sex, and many of them are gay as a tree of monkeys. It's not overt in Interview with the Vampire, but by The Vampire Armand the books have pretty much turned into gay porn.

That said, of course men can have deep friendship, even a kind of love, without it being sexual. If you can love your family in a non-sexual way, why can't you love your friends in a similar way?

By the way, isn't it odd how "platonic love" means non-sexual love, when the ancient Greek philosopher was completely open to sex between friends?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Snarky - yeah, it's a fun spin-off. But it makes sense when you consider his "idealistic" philosophy.

Eldkatt - as regards linguistics,

ho·mo·sex·you·alÃ,  Ã,  ( P )Ã,  Pronunciation KeyÃ,  (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

n. Usage Problem
A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.
Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.

Regarding the rest, no, not really. If we want to see it that way, everyone in GK2 could have been homosexual, because it's not specified. But what do you assume when you see a non-specified character (so to speak)? Me, I always assume they're hetero until I'm shown otherwise. Along with other things, of course - I assume they're healthy until I'm shown the medication pills, I assume they're single until I see the wedding ring... stuff like that. But just because a character DOES have pills doesn't mean he's UNhealthy, exactly. Just because a character has A ring, it doesn't mean they're married. And just because of that scene it doesn't mean Von Glower is homosexual (though he is, in fact, a very sensual AND sexual creature, as shown by DragonRose's quote of Jansen's interview - many thanks, DragonRose). No "generic homophobia-phobia" here, I'm sorry to tell you.

[Peter Thomas]

And just because someone COULD be straight doesn't mean they ARE.

I realise you're speaking purely from opinion (which had me a little confused at first, I thought you were specifically asking for what OTHER people thought), but then it seems a little pointless, since nothing we say will change your mind and vice versa. If you believe that we are all born with the disposition of heterosexuality (which I will not get into - let's assume you're right), then of COURSE you're going to look for a way to explain how such acts are nothing more than platonic and do not indicate anything of a gay sexual nature. There isn't much point of discussion at that point.

[on a side note, I completely agree with whoever said gay and homosexual are the same thing. There may be some defined discrepancies, but ultimately - in this culture - they are exactly the same. If anything, I am MORE insulted by the person who feels they HAVE to say 'homosexual' to avoid confusion than the person who runs past me shouting out "you queer fag!". Not to say I am insulted by you, but I would be if I met you on the street and noticed you doing everything in your power NOT to say "gay"]

And yes, you're right, I suppose EVERYONE in the book/game had the potential to be gay, or at least bi-sexual, BUT, if you read the books, then it becomes completely clear that this guy not only MIGHT be gay, but IS gay/bi.

I do know what you are getting at to some degree - in the same way everyone tried to claim Sam and Frodo were gay/bisexual just because they had a deep brotherly love for each other. But here you're defending the heterosexuality of a being that the author herself has made out to be gay.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I realise you're speaking purely from opinion (which had me a little confused at first, I thought you were specifically asking for what OTHER people thought), but then it seems a little pointless, since nothing we say will change your mind and vice versa. If you believe that we are all born with the disposition of heterosexuality (which I will not get into - let's assume you're right), then of COURSE you're going to look for a way to explain how such acts are nothing more than platonic and do not indicate anything of a gay sexual nature. There isn't much point of discussion at that point

I just wanted to share my thoughts, essentially, and see how they were received. Also, the bulk of this wasn't Von Glower's sexuality or anyone's sexuality, but the deepest relationships I thought - until further reflection provoked by some posts - that were more prone to men/male. And very frankly, it's also been an opportunity to exercise my argumentative skills in defending my views. I didn't post FOR this, but since the oportunity arrived... but yes, indeed it was all very subjective from the word go. Maybe this thread should now be allowed to die.

[on a side note, I completely agree with whoever said gay and homosexual are the same thing. There may be some defined discrepancies, but ultimately - in this culture - they are exactly the same. If anything, I am MORE insulted by the person who feels they HAVE to say 'homosexual' to avoid confusion than the person who runs past me shouting out "you queer fag!". Not to say I am insulted by you, but I would be if I met you on the street and noticed you doing everything in your power NOT to say "gay"]

I was trying to be very specific in this thread. Naturally, when out in the society, I abide by the society's rules and customs and whatnot, and in our society gay HAS become a synonim for homosexual. I just made this separation here for making my point.

And yes, you're right, I suppose EVERYONE in the book/game had the potential to be gay, or at least bi-sexual, BUT, if you read the books, then it becomes completely clear that this guy not only MIGHT be gay, but IS gay/bi.

That is incidental - the point I was making with that paragraph is what we ASSUME until we're told. Your sentence alludes to the point where it's been proven. It's a different kettle of fish.

do know what you are getting at to some degree - in the same way everyone tried to claim Sam and Frodo were gay/bisexual just because they had a deep brotherly love for each other. But here you're defending the heterosexuality of a being that the author herself has made out to be gay.

My bad, again I didn't know about that JJ interview and about that reply, so I've worked from my own conclusions. Although - and this I re-state, or rather, re-opine - that scene alone does not make Von Glower gay, or homosexual, or bisexual. In effect, that's probably why all the humdrum about it began - there's not enough to know for sure either way, so people talk and conclude different things.