# Re choreographer Jerome Robbins and his rejection of the "implicit homosexuality of that depiction" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 4, 2010, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579 "2010-09-04T07:18:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/81 "2010-09-07T15:53:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If so many people are instantly able to read it, then it’s blatant, or at least detectable. I don’t the the artist was trying to trick anybody. The man bulges alone make the intent pretty obvious. The bulge wasn’t that big. Just sayin’… And this is why I spent all my time in the National Gallery of Art last month in the portrait section. So much easier to sleep at night. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/82 "2010-09-07T16:13:04Z")
I didn’t see it as homoerotic at first but the more I’ve read the thread, the more I see it. It’s not really any one concrete thing. More a smattering of things. And an overall feeling. You do see a couple of female asses, but in general, I get the sense that the artist didn’t think they were all that attractive. They look more grotesque. Even the woman in the middle with the big breasts doesn’t look like she’s meant to be seen as attractive. She just looks too fleshy and messy. I feel like the females in this picture want the guys really badly, but the guys are looking at them with boredom or even disgust. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/83 "2010-09-07T16:55:24Z")
There are really only two guys making eye contact with the women (and none of the guys are in the least bit attractive, btw) and they are smiling, with open arms towards the women. One woman is turning away in disgust, the other two are laughing and smiling. So where do you see boredom and disgust on the men’s part? And lust on the women’s? I’m not tryng to pick a fight…I really want you to explain to me where you see that boredom and disgust especially from the men. We are talking about _The Fleet’s In!_, right? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/84 "2010-09-07T17:07:03Z")
**kittenblue** , I’d amend what I said. It’s more disgust/boredom towards women on the part of the artist that I’m seeing. What made me think that the most was actually **AHunter3** ’s post, especially as it concerns the three female friends in a group: > [@AHunter3](#): > > Concerning the female threesome at mid-right: > > a) It isn’t just that there’s no lascivious attention to their bodyshapes. The body poses and facial expressions aren’t inviting to viewer or sailors either. > > b) You don’t see them as separate individual women but as a sort of threesome-blur. On closer inspection you seem to be looking at a three-headed two-bodied amalgamation, with the middle head sort of sprouting between the inner shoulders of the woman to her (its?) left and the woman to the right. Only with very careful study can you make your eyes track down the middle head and join it to the black-clad body. And conjure up the third woman as the head with the amused grin attached to the blue skirt 9/10ths hidden behind the other two women’s bodies. Of the three of them the only one you can sort of focus on easily is the one closest to us in the sunset-toned dress. She’s the one with the snooty haughty expression. Not only is she very flat-chested, her chest is very bony. (Nice ass though). They look sort of monstrous. At first I thought they were two women, and then I realized there were three heads and three bodies, but one body is sort of tucked away. There’s something very creepy/off about that. It almost looks like the middle woman (whose body is depicted as very ungainly/thick) has two heads, as **AHunter3** mentioned. To me, the women look grotesque. It does seem like the guys are engaging with the women but on a very superficial level. Or that they’re not that into them. The woman with the huge ass towards the left is clearly trying to pull up the passed out guy, but none of the guys in that group are at all interested in her. The two sailors with arms around each other and smiling at the women, but they’re touching each other. I mean, they might be interested in the women, but I get the sense that the artist is way more interested sexually in the guys than in the weird looking women. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/85 "2010-09-07T18:16:46Z")
**Nzinga** , I’m not sure what part of my post you find disagreeable, because I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. I’m not saying you need to be an art major to talk about art. If I were, I wouldn’t be able to post here myself. And I’m certainly not saying that any opinion about art is wrong. What I am saying is, if you can’t explain why you feel the way you feel about a work of art, you’re not adding anything to the discussion. In the context of this thread, having **kittenblue** go look for people IRL who agree with her is pointless, because getting a bunch of people who agree with her doesn’t make her opinion more correct. Nor, for that matter, does failing to find anyone who agrees with her make her opinion less correct. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/86 "2010-09-07T18:33:02Z")
> [@kittenblue](#): > > There are really only two guys making eye contact with the women (and none of the guys are in the least bit attractive, btw) Also wanted to respond to this. Obviously, attractiveness is subjective, but attractive or conventionally good looking doesn’t always equal sexual. I’m thinking of R. Crumb’s drawings. Many of the women he draws are rather ugly (Devil Girl, for example), but they’re very sexualized. The guys in this painting aren’t necessarily all that handsome but they’re extremely sexualized. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/87 "2010-09-07T18:46:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Nzinga** , I’m not sure what part of my post you find disagreeable, because I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. This phrase rubbed me wrong, Miller. “Bottom line is, it’s a pretty gay painting, and you don’t need someone to tip you off ahead of time to spot it by yourself.” … Because it is true, one doesn’t need someone to point it out to them to spot it, but some folks may be a bit slow on the uptake (like me) or may never spot it at all. And I think their interpretation is still as valid, if they are moved by the painting without ever seeing the artist’s intention of a homoerotic work. A good artist gives so much, though, in his work, that there is often more than his main intent in each painting for those who might find it. Also this, “One person who can offer a strong, textually supported argument is worth a thousand contrarians who shrug and say, “I dunno,” when asked why they disagree.” I have stood in art museums and wept like a an idiot in front of paintings that I know nothng about. I don’t know if I would have been able to express why it affected me so. Once of my favorite paintings ever is a bridge. That’s pretty much it. I have no clue why it affects me strongly, and I couldn’t express it well to anyone who asks. I know that many people can take that same painting and deconstruct it, break it down, expose its layers, translate the symbolism and tell me the artist’s mother’s maiden name. But that doesn’t mean that their appreciation of the painting trumps mine. I can see where I may have read your posts from a defensive standpoint. I may be a bit sensitive to the topic, I guess. And I know you didn’t say only an art major can appreciate art properly, I was just using an art major as an example of someone who would be able to capably wax philosophical about the meanings of paintings. But I’m a fan of Cadmus now. I’ve fallen in love with his work over the course of this thread and for that I thank you for your awesome post. And the others in this thread that have been so good at showing me other ways to appreciate the work. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/88 "2010-09-07T18:49:44Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > I know that many people can take that same painting and deconstruct it, break it down, expose its layers, translate the symbolism and tell me the artist’s mother’s maiden name. But that doesn’t mean that their appreciation of the painting trumps mine. But why not? We have experts in all kinds of fields. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that a scientist or doctor’s knowledge of their field trumps mine because of their knowledge. Why shouldn’t someone who’s extensively studied and written on a particular facet of the art world be able to say that they know more? When it comes to appreciation–enjoying the piece of art–that’s one thing. I don’t think you can quantify someone’s enjoyment. But I do think that some people’s opinions on what the painting means, or where it fits in a social or historical context, are worth more than others. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/89 "2010-09-07T19:01:46Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > > > I know that many people can take that same painting and deconstruct it, break it down, expose its layers, translate the symbolism and tell me the artist’s mother’s maiden name. But that doesn’t mean that their appreciation of the painting trumps mine. > > But why not? We have experts in all kinds of fields. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that a scientist or doctor’s knowledge of their field trumps mine because of their knowledge. Why shouldn’t someone who’s extensively studied and written on a particular facet of the art world be able to say that they know more? Well, like I said just a couple of posts up, I think art is different. It is _meant_ to be appreciated. One will appreciate an art through their own interpretation of it. It is one thing to feel it and quite another thing to be able to express it. The fact that one person has been trained to express what he feels about a painting (or how he interprets or understands it) better than another person has doesn’t mean his opinion matters more. To me. Art is unique in this way, in my opinion. Totally different than exact sciences like medicine or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/90 "2010-09-07T19:02:45Z")
> [@kittenblue](#): > > Two things spring to mind from your comments. If you are sitting on a wall, reach into your jacket and take out a cigarette pack and start to take one out, and someone sitting farther down the wall asks if they can bum a smoke…as you reach over to hold the pack out to them you would have to lean towards them, would you not? No, I don’t think that you would. Particularly if he used his left hand to offer them to the sailor. Which, if you wanted to communicate that he found the sailors to be an unwelcome intrusion, would make a lot more sense compositionally. Having him lean in like that, with direct eye contact, while offering a gift - these are all things that say, “open, friendly, inviting.” Now, his expression does say something different. There is an element of contempt to it, like I said. There’s a lot of tension between the guy’s expression and his body language. The problem with your interpretation is that you haven’t resolved that tension. You don’t have an explanation for why his body language would all be saying one thing, and his face something different. > [@](#): > > He’s not nearly laying on top of them. Oh, he absolutely is. With his leg up on the wall like that, and his body leaning so far in towards the sailors, if he didn’t have his weight supported on his left arm like that, his head would be on the unconscious sailor’s chest. > [@](#): > > Secondly, the whole thing about the emotional closeness of the male-to-male interactions led me to reconsider the entire theme of the painting…the fleet is in town, and all the sailors have liberty. They know one another. They are buddies. They are most likely from the same ship. They live together, work together, are comrades-in-arms and friends. As military men they have a bond that is tighter than brothers. Of course that bond will be noticeable as “friendly, familiar, fraternal” because that is what they are. And that bond will be stronger than that of the bond with the women they are trying to pick up. Cadmus captured that comradery very well. Sure, but that’s just the surface meaning of the painting. I don’t think the intent here is to depict a bunch of gay sailors shortly before their big gay sailor orgy. The scene we’re looking at, in a literal sense, is a bunch of heterosexual sailors out looking for dames. But the way that camaraderie is portrayed is subtly sexualized, and the interactions with the women is strongly de-sexualized. The end result is that what is, the dandy aside, an ostensibly heterosexual scene ends up with gay all over it. > [@](#): > > All I am trying to say is that, while you might clearly see every nuance and hand position and drape of fabric as evidence of one thing, that one thing may be influenced by what we are told to expect. How many people came in to this thread and said, “I didn’t see x in y until someone said that’s what they saw, so I went back and looked again and I guess they could be right”? Quite a few, I’m sure. What of it? If you look at[this picture,](http://media.kelbymediagroup.com/layersmagazine/images/tutorials/design/photoshop/57/vase.jpg) and only see a vase until someone points out the two faces, does that mean the two faces aren’t really there? > [@](#): > > Sometimes the shape of a woman’s arm is influenced by the model the artist used, or the sketches he made in the park…not a conscious decision to imply that this woman is really a man. Maybe a red tie is just fashionable at the time, or the color he had left on the palette at the end of a long day when he didn’t want to mix up a new color. Which is why I avoid arguing artist intent, and stick with what the picture is saying, not what I think the artist might have wanted it to say. > [@](#): > > Sorry I can’t back up my opinion with references. But you can, and have been! You’re doing a fine job arguing your position, for the most part. I don’t find it persuasive, but don’t let that get you down. The point, ultimately, isn’t to persuade, although it’s always nice when that happens). The point is just to communicate. In the end, when we talk about art, we aren’t really saying anything about the work. We’re saying things about ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/91 "2010-09-07T19:12:47Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > This phrase rubbed me wrong, Miller. > > “Bottom line is, it’s a pretty gay painting, and you don’t need someone to tip you off ahead of time to spot it by yourself.” … Because it is true, one doesn’t need someone to point it out to them to spot it, but some folks may be a bit slow on the uptake (like me) or may never spot it at all. And I think their interpretation is still as valid, if they are moved by the painting without ever seeing the artist’s intention of a homoerotic work. A good artist gives so much, though, in his work, that there is often more than his main intent in each painting for those who might find it. Yeah, I can see how that could be taken the wrong way. I meant that to be a rebuttal to **kittenblue** ’s suggestion that the only reason people were seeing homoeroticism in the painting was because they had been told to look for it. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone who didn’t spot it right away was deficient. > [@](#): > > “One person who can offer a strong, textually supported argument is worth a thousand contrarians who shrug and say, “I dunno,” when asked why they disagree.” > > I have stood in art museums and wept like a an idiot in front of paintings that I know nothng about. I don’t know if I would have been able to express why it affected me so. Once of my favorite paintings ever is a bridge. That’s pretty much it. I have no clue why it affects me strongly, and I couldn’t express it well to anyone who asks. I know that many people can take that same painting and deconstruct it, break it down, expose its layers, translate the symbolism and tell me the artist’s mother’s maiden name. But that doesn’t mean that their appreciation of the painting trumps mine. And again, I can see where I was unclear. I meant that strictly in the context of _talking about_ art, and not simply enjoying art. Of course, you don’t need to be able to articulate why you love art in order to love art. But if you want to talk about art, to put forward an idea of what a work means, and how it accomplishes that meaning, you absolutely need to be able to describe your feelings and relate them to what’s happening on the canvas. Otherwise, you’re not discussing the work, you’re just voting on it. And art isn’t a democratic process. > [@](#): > > But I’m a fan of Cadmus now. I’ve fallen in love with his work over the course of this thread and for that I thank you for your awesome post. And the others in this thread that have been so good at showing me other ways to appreciate the work. And thank you for reading it. I’m always kind of surprised that people have the patience to wade through the walls of text I tend to throw up when I get going on these sorts of subjects. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/92 "2010-09-07T21:54:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Nzinga** , In the context of this thread, having **kittenblue** go look for people IRL who agree with her is pointless, because getting a bunch of people who agree with her doesn’t make her opinion more correct. Nor, for that matter, does failing to find anyone who agrees with her make her opinion less correct. Oh, I wasn’t trying to amass supporters for my “side”…I was wanting to get the reactions from people who didn’t find the painting from this thread and have the whole Jerome Robbins/controversy backstory in their head when they viewed it. Just to see if what everyone else thought was obvious, was to the virgin viewer. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/93 "2010-09-07T22:56:34Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > \ > In the world of art, a cigar is _rarely_ just a cigar. Right. Sometimes it’s a pipe. Now I’ll go back to reading the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/94 "2010-09-07T23:57:00Z")
> [@kittenblue](#): > > You’re kidding, right? She’s wearing a dress, and you think it’s ambiguous? True she’s wearing bobby socks and low-heeled shoes, which might imply a teenager, but come on! Her body is bent at an awkward angle, by an artist who is taking liberties with proportions, and her butt isn’t as round as the woman next to hers, so you think that makes her a boy? And her hair is styled in a fashion of the day for women! > > I’m surprised no one has deconstructed the middle woman in the group of three who is obviously a Big Girl…just look at those ankles and feet. But…she has womanly boobs! What are we to make of this? What about the tall woman with no boobs and an Adam’s apple? ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/95 "2010-09-07T23:59:43Z")
> [@Eats\_Crayons](#): > > > [@kittenblue](#): > > > > What about the tall woman with no boobs and an Adam’s apple? Anorexic. Former flapper. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/96 "2010-09-08T00:02:53Z")
Proof that Ann Coulter isn’t human? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/97 "2010-09-08T00:15:31Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > > > I know that many people can take that same painting and deconstruct it, break it down, expose its layers, translate the symbolism and tell me the artist’s mother’s maiden name. But that doesn’t mean that their appreciation of the painting trumps mine. > > But why not? We have experts in all kinds of fields. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that a scientist or doctor’s knowledge of their field trumps mine because of their knowledge. Why shouldn’t someone who’s extensively studied and written on a particular facet of the art world be able to say that they know more? They may know more, but that doesn’t necessarily make them more right, except perhaps in some technical aspects. Art is not really the _thing_ before us, the physical product of the artist’s labor. That’s the vessel. The important part is the _function_ that occurs when someone takes it in. All art is incomplete until it has an audience. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/98 "2010-09-08T05:35:53Z")
Well, count me in as another person who saw that painting and immediately thought it was homoerotic without reading any of the interpretations posted. In fact my first thought was, “That reminds me of a tame Tom of Finland.” ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/99 "2010-09-08T06:31:20Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Well, count me in as another person who saw that painting and immediately thought it was homoerotic without reading any of the interpretations posted. In fact my first thought was, “That reminds me of a tame Tom of Finland.” You mean [this?](http://impiousdigest.com/Tom_of_Finland_05.jpg) \< (mildly NSFW) I’m sorry. I’m just not seeing the homoeroticism in that. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579/100 "2010-09-08T12:18:27Z")
Now THAT’s a bulge! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-choreographer-jerome-robbins-and-his-rejection-of-the-implicit-homosexuality-of-that-depiction/552579.md?page=6)