reply to post by kidflash2008
Let's assume that eroticism is linked more to romanticism - an attraction of the spirit, or "love" - than the physical.
Well, there's an old debate which is very biologically deterministic (and therefore, I find, problematic) that the male brain is only excited by
porn, while the female brain leans more towards the erotic atmosphere.
I'm not sure this argument concering sexuality is the over-riding element here. Shower scenes and lockers can be erotic, but since the 1970s this
leans toward porn, and movies don't deal with it as such. When they do it is to work with an erotic atmosphere, or often such scenes are linked with
male-rape and violence (such as "History American X"). There are also rape scenes in straight contexts, but for me that's not homoeroticism, or any
kind of eroticism.
Nudity is not really erotic in itself, often quite the opposite. In fact, I think that puritanical societies make the "hidden" erotic, and draw
undue attention to certain body parts, particularly the opposite sex, with censorship. That is why open "porn" is sexual but never erotic.
But one could say that "porn" is private, but same-sex attraction as camaraderie, love, expectation and sacrifice is a public matter that defines
gender identies and relations (even political manipulation).
I've also seen many a locker room, but I can't say they've left any lasting impression, unlike much of the material here. I also can't say that
I've been turned on or expected that in any way - but I have felt something profoundly human in every post and link.
You raise some great points (what do others think?), but the glue that holds us together as humans is not just violence, rape and overt sex. lt is
also mostly caring, tenderness and love... darn me, that was hard to admit.
(And I suppose, film is a genre with its own codes and readings, so we should never read our reality by its language.)
[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]