Homosexuality In Proulx's Brokeback Mountain
The same civilisation that ignored Rich and her lesbianism was the same civilisation that murdered Earl for his implied homosexuality with Rich when they set up a ranch together without either of them having a wife in Proulx’s ‘Brokeback Mountain’. Both Jack and Ennis grew up in the state of Wyoming where the sodomy statute was changed in 1951 to double the penalty of being found to have had anal sex, the law stated 'Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature ... who being male carnally knows any man or woman through the anus' (cited in Ahmed et. al., 2015, p. 1239) and would now receive up to ten years in prison which wasn’t repealed and replaced with sexual assault laws until 1977. Sodomy laws were used to affectively ban homosexuality as anal sex was seen as being against the bible and Christianity hence there was great prejudice
…show more content…
towards homosexuals from the religious communities of America. Yet in 1953, Earl and Rich are not handed over to the law to face the charges of suspected sodomy instead the men of community took it upon themselves to murder Earl because of their intolerance towards homosexuality regardless of whether it was widely known or kept secret.
Ennis recalled that “They’d took a tire iron to [Earl], spurred him up, drug him around by his dick until it pulled off, just bloody pulp.” (Proulx, n.d., p. 13) as a way to show ‘there is no place in society for any man who feels desire for other men’ (Patterson, 2008, p. 154). It was an act of violence intended to warn other men and even boys like Ennis, whose “Dad made sure I seen it. Took me to see it” (Proulx, n.d., p. 14), that homosexuality was not acceptable. Despite the fact their conversation about starting a new life together in Mexico happened in the 1980s where homosexuality was becoming more widely tolerated, Ennis still feared facing the same persecution that Earl faced which ultimately leads to Jack’s death where Ennis believed ‘they got him with the tire iron’ (Proulx, n.d., p. 21) just like the murderers of Earl ‘got
him’. Hence ‘The parallel between Jack and Ennis and Earl and Rich suggests a historical trend of rural homophobia and impossibility of fulfillment’ (Pullen, 2009, p. 163) which in turn shows the need for a revised model of sexual identity where homosexual men were allowed to express their identity safely without persecution from the law or their community in the 1960s.
towards homosexuals from the religious communities of America. Yet in 1953, Earl and Rich are not handed over to the law to face the charges of suspected sodomy instead the men of community took it upon themselves to murder Earl because of their intolerance towards homosexuality regardless of whether it was widely known or kept secret.
Ennis recalled that “They’d took a tire iron to [Earl], spurred him up, drug him around by his dick until it pulled off, just bloody pulp.” (Proulx, n.d., p. 13) as a way to show ‘there is no place in society for any man who feels desire for other men’ (Patterson, 2008, p. 154). It was an act of violence intended to warn other men and even boys like Ennis, whose “Dad made sure I seen it. Took me to see it” (Proulx, n.d., p. 14), that homosexuality was not acceptable. Despite the fact their conversation about starting a new life together in Mexico happened in the 1980s where homosexuality was becoming more widely tolerated, Ennis still feared facing the same persecution that Earl faced which ultimately leads to Jack’s death where Ennis believed ‘they got him with the tire iron’ (Proulx, n.d., p. 21) just like the murderers of Earl ‘got
him’. Hence ‘The parallel between Jack and Ennis and Earl and Rich suggests a historical trend of rural homophobia and impossibility of fulfillment’ (Pullen, 2009, p. 163) which in turn shows the need for a revised model of sexual identity where homosexual men were allowed to express their identity safely without persecution from the law or their community in the 1960s.