There was the nude wrestling scene in Women in Love and the sex scenes in The Killing of Sister George from the late sixties iirc.
It’s been ages since I’ve seen it, but the OP’s description of the Florida fantasy sequence makes it sound like Stewie and Rupert from Family Guy.
I found the ambiguity compelling exactly because they were such damaged individuals and they were finding the sort of support they had never got from parents or peers as they grew up. That intimacy could have had an element of attraction, but the director chose not to emphasise it because it wasn’t necessary to the story.
Is the book worth hunting down?
It depends. If nothing else, it’s a really quick read - I think 250 pages, and I got through it in 3 hours or so, and I am not a fast reader. Actually, thinking on the language, and the symbolism, it’s an exceptionally easy read, too. Save for the subject matter, it almost comes off like a YA book pitched at sixth graders. But, it also has wonderfully drawn characters, and a few lovely moments, and a lot of melodrama, and a subject matter that I find compelling. If you liked the movie, it’s worth a look. If you don’t like it, it won’t waste much of your time.
I never dreamed that people didn’t think that they were both gay. It was really clear to me.
Joe’s revulsion in encounters with men, to me, was more about how low he had sunk. Especially the movie theater guy. He dreamed of making it big as a higher end gigolo. With his women clients he seemed to show a distinct lack of enjoyment outside of what was necessary for “the show”. I think this was the main reason he failed in that business.
Ratso picked up Joe on his gaydar right away.
I can’t say I agree. Joe didn’t seem to be worried about how low he’d sunk - he’d come out to New York with the expressed purpose of sinking that low. And while he didn’t enjoy his encounters with his female clients, he seemed to enjoy himself with his girlfriend in the flashbacks. You could make an argument that he’s bisexual, and it’s only due to suppression of sexuality or trauma from being raped that sparks his disgust with men (that’s basically text in the book), but I don’t see any real evidence for that in the film.
Rizzo, though, I’m pretty sure was gay in the film, and that we were meant to think so. Once again, though, this is all tangental to the theme of the story, that the need to connect with others transcends sex, sexuality, class, intellect, ability, and social status, and is an animal need on level with eating and keeping warm.
It didn’t really “solve” the situation, unfortunately,as many theaters and newspapers wound up rejecting NC-17 films, as well. As a result, very few NC-17 pictures get released, studios will re-edit films to avoid an initial NC-17 rating, and the MPAA even created a “masterpiece exception” to give certain films an R rather than NC-17