response 1 of 34:

Jan 23 12:13 UTC 1995

In the movie "Sleep With Me," there is a scene at a party where two
people are discussing "Top Gun" as a strugle with sexuality. The
other night I watched "Top Gun" for the first time, bearing in
mind the above theory, and came away with these points:

The communications while in the aircraft are often loaded with
sexual imagery and metaphors. Such phrases as "He's on my tail!,"
"I'm losing control!," and "Coming in hard!" are exchanged 
between pilots. Even on the ground, flying is discussed as if it
were sex.

Maverick is wreckless as a pilot, but he's also reckless in his
sexuality, going for girls (Charlie [note the unisex name]) and
guys (Goose, for one [keep in mind other uses of the word "goose"])
alike. He can't choose, and he often goes back and forth between
the two.

Iceman represents the homosexual side. Note his attempts to turn
Maverick to his side. He will often tell Maverick that he's being
wreckless and unsafe and that he should stick with his buddies.

Charlie represents the heterosexual side. She tries to convert
Maverick by masquerading in sheep's clothing, so to speak. During
one scene in particular, she moves in on Maverick only to have
him leave. The next time we see Charlie, she has her hair tied up,
she's wearing a cap, and she looks like a guy! This change of
appearance makes Maverick pay attention.

Goose also seems to struggle with his sexuality. He's married
with a kid, but he still can't seem to leave the homosexual
side. While flying (sex!) with Charlie, they lose control and
Goose dies (from internal bleeding, nonetheless!). Goose
*had* to die, because he had wavered too far from the homosexual
side.

One of the last scenes in the movie involves Maverick rescuing
Iceman during aerial combat. Afterwards, Iceman thanks him by
saying, "You can be my wingman anytime!," which signals 
Maverick's accepting of his homosexuality.

Any thoughts? I'm going to see about seeing it again while
taking notes. I think it's an interesting theory.

response 3 of 34:

Jan 24 02:58 UTC 1995

This is now linked from Arts 96 to Sexuality 86.

response 5 of 34:

Jan 24 21:26 UTC 1995

        Um, WHATEVER. I think there are some folks here with FAR too much time
on their hands, and not enough of something else. :}

response 7 of 34:

Jan 25 04:33 UTC 1995

If "Top Gun" were a real story, rather than a film, perhaps it would exclude
the possibility of a subtext introduced by the screenwriters intentionally.
In other words, because it is a complete fiction, there is a very realistic
possibility that the writers developed the dialogue with the intention of
employing dual meaning, just as a form of design conceit.

response 9 of 34:

Jan 26 17:44 UTC 1995

   Never.  I just don't see sexual allogory everywhere I turn, which
does seem to be increasingly rare. ;-)

response 11 of 34:

Jan 27 16:30 UTC 1995

        Johann Sigmund Remmers? Oh, brother!

response 15 of 34:

Jan 30 04:44 UTC 1995

        Art is there to invoke a reaction from the patron. Make of it what
you will, I say.

response 17 of 34:

Feb 1 06:30 UTC 1995

Oh certainly.  That's why we're *HERE*.

response 19 of 34:

Feb 10 17:41 UTC 1995

        Well, maybe you should do something more *interesting* with your
hands, then. <wink>

response 21 of 34:

Feb 12 23:52 UTC 1995

        Now *I* have to say it's going a bit far..

response 23 of 34:

Feb 14 06:10 UTC 1995

His digital organ!  ;)