MovieChat Forums > The Normal Heart (2014) Discussion > Things I learned from this movie

Things I learned from this movie

posted 10 years ago by Darkfalz1979
41 replies | jump to latest

1. If you are the star of the movie, you can have gay sex with multiple HIV infected men and not get AIDS.

2. Homosexual promiscuity is just an expression of freedom. Not because the behaviour/lifestyle is actually radically different.

3. Telling homosexuals who are getting AIDS to stop having so much promiscuous sex makes them angry.

4. Gay men getting AIDS is the mayor's fault.

5. When you make a movie about gays, somehow every 5th member of the general public is gay. Rather than 2-3% of the population, like in reality.

6. Gay men getting AIDS is your wealthy/influential brother's fault.

7. People who enthusiastically spurn God's laws all their lives still have the gall to ask God for help when they are dying.

8. The only straight people who care about AIDS are wheelchair bound German women who pretend they are Jewish. And crooked politicians worried about getting AIDS from hookers giving blowjobs.

9. Gay men getting AIDS is the media's fault.

10. People who go swingers parties and to orgies have to insist they are the same as their straight brother.

11. Gay men getting AIDS is the (republican) government's fault.

12. Gays in the early 80s had the fashion foresight to dress and wear their hair like men in the 2000s.

13. Gay men getting AIDS is the president's fault.

14. Despite being an obviously sexually transmitted disease, few people bother with condoms.

15. Gay men getting AIDS is the airline's fault.

16. Gays somehow can't talk to each other about AIDS and require everyone else to communicate it to them for them.

17. Gay men getting AIDS is the medical board's fault.

18. AIDS apparently robbed the world of a lot of plays and dances.

19. Gay men getting AIDS is every heterosexual's fault. They are in fact "murdering" gay people.

20. Mark Ruffalo is the biggest and most obnoxious liberal douchebag in Hollywood.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ArtAesthetics 10 years ago

Wow! This post is a perfect exercise in focusing on non-essentials and completely missing the point of the movie. You've got huge blinders dude. Its obvious you have weird obsession with homosexuality. You interpreted everything through a single, not to mention heavily biased, lens. If this movie couldn't open your eyes then it's a lost cause. I truly find this very sad.

[–] Congirl 10 years ago

Obviously you learned nothing. Shame.

[–] cinles 10 years ago

For someone with a negative attitude about this movie, you sure spent a lot of time writing about it. There's so much of what you wrote about the movie I don't remember happening or I know is wrong and the rest of it is information that is wrong and/or I don't agree with, but I respect your opinion. Not sure this is the right board for you.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

This movie had a negative attitude to everyone except homosexuals and their refusal to not engage in risky, promiscuous and depraved behaviour.

This film describes everything wrong with homosexuals and leftism in general.

[–] cinles 10 years ago

This movie had a negative attitude to everyone except homosexuals What does this even mean? It's an award winning play that has been on Broadway off & on since 1985. and their refusal to not engage in risky, promiscuous and depraved behaviour. Many people engage in this kind of sex, no matter what their orientation. This film describes everything wrong with homosexuals and leftism in general. What does leftism have to do with this?

[–] witchnicky-1 10 years ago

I actually thought gay promiscuity was portrayed as negative, in that Ned was trying to get his friends and other gays in his social circle to abstain while further research could be made about the virus, but everyone else thought he was demolishing their hard-won right to *beep* whoever they wanted.
The sad part was that neither side was right and that the simple use of condoms could have done much to prevent the disease from spreading. But on the whole, I thought Ned's point of view was presented as the most positive attitude towards the crisis, at the expense of promiscuity.

[–] blindvias-071407 10 years ago

You missed the point of the movie and have joined a large group on this board that want to blame gay men for HIV.

Your thoughts sound like a reflection of the officials, and closet cases that ignored HIV for too long, letting it become an epidemic.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

You missed the point of the movie and have joined a large group on this board that want to blame gay men for HIV.

I don't blame gay men for HIV. I blame gay men and the gay lifestyle for their own infections with HIV.

[–] cinles 10 years ago

I don't blame gay men for HIV. I blame gay men and the gay lifestyle for their own infections with HIV.

Do you ever make any sense? Your response makes no sense.

[–] bpoz 10 years ago

I think it's clear at this point that darkfalz is a troll. I'm still glad I responded to the posts I did but I doubt it will have any impact. Nice to see better attitudes expressed by so many other people though.

[–] cinles 10 years ago

I guess it was troll feeding time. Sometimes I really get concerned about our world when I see people who actually think that way, let alone print it.

[–] blindvias-071407 10 years ago

Human nature is tending to believe the first argument one hears. Knowing that, I believe it is worthy to respond in general, to counteract someone putting their flawed thinking on the internet, even when they are trolls.

[–] bpoz 10 years ago

Agreed. At least the more reasoned posts will be there for people to read and the nonsense won't stand un-refuted.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Advocating personal responsibility for sexual behaviour makes a person a troll? Good one.

[–] Buff70 10 years ago

It.s just stunning to me, how people jump at your throat for advocating GOOD Acceptable behavior.

Oh we are so UN-cool for not encouraging gay lifestyle, don't you know.

[–] ThatsMyJam 10 years ago

I blame gay men and the gay lifestyle for their own infections with HIV.

Are you going to blame straight people and the straight lifestyle for their own infections with STD?

[–] bootblack987 10 years ago

Sorry I'm late...this is the Homophobes Annonymous meeting, right?

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Sorry I'm late...this is the Homophobes Annonymous meeting, right?

Why challenge any facts when you can just use tired, now meaningless name calling. Do you even know what a homophobe is?

[–] bootblack987 10 years ago

Homophobe? That's an easy one. There's twenty examples of what a homophobe is in the first post of this thread. 

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Wrong, none of those things are homophobic.

[–] jonaloin 10 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as the OP but I believe the underlying point he was trying to make is that the movie (from the viewpoint of Ned) appears to blame everyone else except themselves. Yes, they desperately needed help but these men were irresponsible as well. When advised to "cool it" for a bit, they refused, claiming that it was their hard-fought right to have promiscuous sex.

I found Ned to be extremely unlikable and despite his activism, I'm not sure if his tirades and accusations of "murder" actually helped the cause. I think it only made it worse. Feel sorry for the poor brother, who appeared to help him in so many ways and yet it was never enough.

Bottom line: It's no one's fault that AIDS exist. That is just nature. However, if you fail to be responsible in your actions, if you refuse to heed advice because you just wanna have fun, you should accept some responsibility.

I personally would have liked a little scene where someone actually regrets fooling around (because they got infected or infected their loved one), just to provide a more balanced viewpoint because this movie was all about pointing to others as the "problem" when the harsh reality is that THEY were part of the problem as well.

[–] bootblack987 10 years ago

The movie did have characters telling others to take a step back until they had a clearer idea of what the virus was and how it operated. So there were people taking responsibility for their actions.

As far as calling gay people irresponsible, it's somewhat homophobic for you to judge people for wanting to have a sex life when the oppression the rest of society foisted upon them was in regards to their sexuality. I wonder if you were in the southern U.S. in the 1950's if you would have told African-Americans to just sit quietly in the back of the bus a bit longer until the rest of their community could adapt to the idea of them sitting anywhere they wished on the bus. Or if in 1930's Germany you may have suggested that Jews be just a little less Jew-y. "Do you really have to wear that thing on your head all the time and have such excessive facial hair?"

[–] jonaloin 10 years ago

The movie did have characters telling others to take a step back until they had a clearer idea of what the virus was and how it operated. So there were people taking responsibility for their actions.

The only character I saw telling others to take a step back was the doctor at the meeting an that obviously didn't go very well. As Ned said, welcome to "gay politics". I am sure there were a number that did take a step back but the "impression" I got from the movie was that the overwhelming majority did not.

As far as calling gay people irresponsible, it's somewhat homophobic for you to judge people for wanting to have a sex life when the oppression the rest of society foisted upon them was in regards to their sexuality. I wonder if you were in the southern U.S. in the 1950's if you would have told African-Americans to just sit quietly in the back of the bus a bit longer until the rest of their community could adapt to the idea of them sitting anywhere they wished on the bus. Or if in 1930's Germany you may have suggested that Jews be just a little less Jew-y. "Do you really have to wear that thing on your head all the time and have such excessive facial hair?"

I am not suggesting that it was irresponsible of them to have promiscuous sex to begin with. They didn't know any better. But I stand by my assertion that it was irresponsible if they continued to do so despite being warned of the possibility (by a doctor no less) that the disease was transmitted sexually. I honestly do not see how that is homophobic. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. My comments would apply to heterosexuals as well, though of course at the time it was thought that only gays would get it. The examples you cite of Jews and blacks has no bearing to the instance here. I was not proposing that gays abstain from sex because the idea is gross/uncomfortable for heterosexuals to deal with. To the contrary, I was suggesting that they abstain because of the risk of getting infected or infecting others. In other words, it was to their own benefit and those around them to abstain for the time being. If they proceed nonetheless through sheer ignorance, then they take the risk and will have to live (and die) with it.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Yes, but the film did take a critical view of "gays thinking with their penis", as it was said, it did not praise gays for their promiscuity as the OP suggested. Nowhere in the film was it said that irresponsible sex with many partners was something commendable, thus it is not a gay propaganda. They did balance this subtle criticism with questions like "And what should we do instead?", so the film took no sides; it was impartial, just as it should be.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Good post. All valid points.

The main difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn't the gender you choose to go to bed with. It's the massive difference in promiscuity. It makes sense too - remove the pair bonding that males and females were specifically designed for, and the conception of children that results, and you really aren't left with much other than sexual gratification.

[–] ArtAesthetics 10 years ago

Men in general are more promiscuous than women. Since all gays are men it's a statistical logic that you'll find more promiscuity in them compared to general population. The reason is not because they are gay but it's because they are men.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Nonsense. Heterosexual men are clearly not as promiscuous as homosexuals. Homosexual women are likely also more promiscuous than hetero men.

[–] bpoz 10 years ago

Your argument has no basis in logic and you offer no actual facts or research to support your claim. It's just your personal opinion. And one based in ignorance at that.

I don't mean to be insulting to you so please understand my point. People all over the world (gay and straight) form lasting attachments to other individuals without the need or desire to procreate. The first is not dependent on the second. Therefore there are promiscuous heterosexuals and monogamous ones just as there are promiscuous homosexuals and monogamous ones. Orientation does not determine promiscuity. Your premise is simply flawed.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

I challenge you to find ONE study which shows comparable rates of promiscuity between heterosexual and homosexual men.

Every study I've looked at shows that homosexuals have on average more partners, and by a significant margin. You can make excuses like this is because we don't let gays get married or whatever, but considering that homosexuals have something like 3000% less potential partners, this debunks any of that weak argument pretty quickly.

Infidelity is fairly high in straight relationships, approaching 50% over time, but in gay relationships it approaches 100%. That's a huge difference any way you look at it.

It's simply ignorant of basic facts to claim that the only difference is the preference of gender you find attractive. There is a massive behavioural difference.

[–] bpoz 10 years ago

Sorry but that's just factually inaccurate. "Approaches 100%"? Where did you get that?

Please post a link to even one verifiable study that says any of the things you have claimed. And no I'm not talking about rabid fundamentalists who make up their own narrative and present it as fact. I'm talking about peer reviewed studies, accepted by any experts in related fields of study and professional experience, that have any element of genuine analysis to them.

"There is a massive behavioral difference"? That's just you spouting a personal opinion and claiming it as fact. I'm sorry but your prejudice is showing.

[–] Darkfalz1979 10 years ago

Sorry but that's just factually inaccurate. "Approaches 100%"? Where did you get that?

After the Ball (1989) Kirk/Masden "the cheating ratio of
'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples"

Research by McWhirter and Mattison "found that all the couples
who had been together at least 5 years had incorporated some provision for outside
sexual activity in their relationships"

According to a 1991 study of 900 homosexuals by Dr. Martin Dannecker, German
"sexologist" who is a homosexual himself, 83% of the males living in "steady
relationships" had numerous sexual encounters outside the partnership over a one-year period."

On and on and on it goes, in every study. Homosexual physical monogamy is a myth. Most of these people doing the studies, by the way, are homosexuals - not "rabid fundamentalists".

"There is a massive behavioral difference"? That's just you spouting a personal opinion and claiming it as fact. I'm sorry but your prejudice is showing.

Facts are prejudicial? It's not prejudice to view different behaviours differently. It's common sense and an acknowledgement of reality.

You want to know what I think a good definition of prejudice is? Someone who continues to argue with blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their beliefs.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cite these supposed studies you mentioned or you are talking nonsense.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Katherina_Minola 9 years ago

Namecalling. Like calling someone a douchebag you mean? Which is what you did in your own opening post?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Korios 10 years ago

0. You are a supreme troll.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] bunnywithanaxe 10 years ago

Jane: 🙌