A very admirable skill set.
A very admirable skill set.That's because we like nice things that match the drapes.
Oscar Wilde is a complex case. He was still heterosexually married. I don't know that if you asked him if he was a homosexual he would say yes - he had his affairs with men, and certainly fell in love with one, but I don't know that he would have declared for the identity, as such a thing was still in its infancy. He wasn't imprisoned for being a homosexual - he was imprisoned for "gross indecency" which was specifically sexual acts between men (but not sodomy, which was a separate, more serious charge). He was still of the world where people committed homosexual acts but were not "homosexuals", as was the case since at least the Renaissance.
No doubt - gay acceptance is still an uphill struggle. The semantics as you put it, though, are not merely esoteric in this case. The notion of a same-sex attraction identity, as opposed to just same-sex sexual activity, is what I'm talking about.My point was that, no matter what semantics, the activity was seen as a perversion and unnatural - and that a great many people still see it that way. It's an uphill battle that will probably need to be fought over and over again for homosexuality to be truly accepted universally.
the idea of such a thing was inconceivable to the 19th century mind
Don- you're the one misunderstanding here. Of course there have always been queer people throughout history - not having a label to put on the feelings doesn't mean they didn't exist or that people who had them didn't figure out ways to live queer lives. There have always been the "spinster aunts" and "bachelor roommates". In the 19th century, if you turned to any of the famous queer people of that time, and asked them, "how do you identify yourself" they'd answer "poet", "painter", "politician", not "gay". There was no "gay" to be. And it isn't just some semantic distinction. I have neither the time nor the energy to go into a full on education of the history of sexuality in this forum. Please educate yourself on the history of psychology and how the concept of sexuality was created at the end of the 19th century.I think you underestimate what was more-or-less universally understood in a society that kept quiet about a lot of "impolite" things.That it didn't make it into the written record doesn't mean it wasn't know.
There was no "gay" to be.
Lemon, no sugar please vPhew... this thread needs a breather. Ice tea anyone?
Didn't strangers of the same sex sleep together in inns? They shared the same bed either because it was cheaper or a better way to stay warm. Maybe they were playing checkers.So many interpretations! I thought it was a mild joke on himself "I'm not open- as in openly gay, which is a common phrase these days, the opposite of closeted - enough for this conversation." But I may be completely wrong.
I took a look at a lot of the photos in the link and I didn't necessarily see them as gay- can't they be great friends that love being together? I think there is in general too much pigeon-holing on this stuff- it's all on a spectrum. I was glad to see so many happy guys in the pics.
Don't Arab male friends hold hands in countries where homosexuality is frowned upon??No doubt - gay acceptance is still an uphill struggle. The semantics as you put it, though, are not merely esoteric in this case. The notion of a same-sex attraction identity, as opposed to just same-sex sexual activity, is what I'm talking about.
Some of the images are extremely daring for the subjects to have taken, especially the 20th century ones. The early images from the middle 19th century were NOT daring in the same way - affection between men was much more acceptable and not seen as a sign of "deviance". Actual "deviance" was of course harshly punished, but what we look at today and say is a sign of a same-sex "lifestyle" would not have registered as such at the time a lot of the photos were taken, in part because the idea of such a thing was inconceivable to the 19th century mind. In the world before the 1870s/1880s, there was dramatic social segregation between men and women who were not married. Men formed intense, close friendships with other men, and women, with women. If you read correspondence between male friends written say at the time of the US Civil War, and are unaware of this, you'd swear they were romantically involved life-partners, when in fact they were heterosexual. Florid, romantic, over-the-top declarations of love was the trend of the era.
No, Don, you're not understanding. And I can't make you understand, apparently. Go do the research and do the reading and then come back and talk to me.Once again, you're caught up in the language of now. You'd just not understanding what I'm saying.
No, Don, you're not understanding. And I can't make you understand, apparently. Go do the research and do the reading and then come back and talk to me.
You really need to go back through and read what I wrote in my posts if you think I had any lack of understanding of what you wrote. All I've been doing is questioning your arrogance.
If you push that these distinctions are "more than just semantic", then you are saying that homosexuality is a modern invention - i.e., not natural - in and of itself. If you now say that it is a term that refers to a natural disposition, that brings it back into semantics - i.e., it is a relatively new tern to refer to an aspect of human natural reality. So, when you say, There was no "gay" to be. And it isn't just some semantic distinction.," are you saying that there were no people predisposed to homosexuality prior to the adoption of the word "gay" --- which, I guess, actually made it possible for people to be homosexual?
Great response, thank you.There's an awful lot being written about sexuality (and gender conformity) in general, but this is not really the forum for this. At the end of the day, and speaking as a transgender person myself, all I want is just to be accepted. That's it. No big discussions about it, just treated as any other hetero-normative, socially 'acceptable' person. No debates needed. Shouldn't even be a point for talking about.
No Don, you are totally failing to understand my point. I've been drawing the distinction between identity and behavior. Since there were more than two people to rub genitalia against, there has been homosexual behavior. But there was not a "Gay" identity. I've said repeatedly that there have always been "bachelor roommates" and "spinster aunts", and "sodomites". Of course, throughout recorded history there have been people who have been exclusive in their same-sex preferences, and their cousins and kin who played both sides of the field. I'm not saying that isn't true, not in any way. What I'm saying is that this notion that there is some identity, this culture, this tribe to belong to, is thoroughly modern. The term itself "gay","queer","invert","urning" (yes, that's an actual 19th century clinical name invented by a German theorist)... doesn't really matter. Again, go do your own research - I don't have the time or energy to distill a year's worth of history of psychology and history of sexuality courses into an online forum post to educate you.You really need to go back through and read what I wrote in my posts if you think I had any lack of understanding of what you wrote. All I've been doing is questioning your arrogance.
If you push that these distinctions are "more than just semantic", then you are saying that homosexuality is a modern invention - i.e., not natural - in and of itself. If you now say that it is a term that refers to a natural disposition, that brings it back into semantics - i.e., it is a relatively new tern to refer to an aspect of human natural reality. So, when you say, There was no "gay" to be. And it isn't just some semantic distinction.," are you saying that there were no people predisposed to homosexuality prior to the adoption of the word "gay" --- which, I guess, actually made it possible for people to be homosexual?
I will disagree with you insofar as this debate is relevant to the topic of the book being discussed. But yes, the debate has gotten to the point of mutual intransigence. My last comment is my last comment.@TheFlyingCamera @Don Heisz - guys, seriously? Please, give it up. If you want to discuss semantics and the history of sexuality and pyschology, then please do so... but not here. It's a photo forum and quite frankly, @TheFlyingCamera you should know better as a member of the Council on this site. You're turning this into a tit-for-tat, personal running commentary.
Sage Sohier did a somewhat similar project called "At Home With Themselves: Same-Sex Couples in 1980s America". Photos from the project/book can be found here:
http://sagesohier.com/at-home-with-themselves
Sohier is an excellent documentary photographer.
There's an awful lot being written about sexuality (and gender conformity) in general, but this is not really the forum for this. At the end of the day, and speaking as a transgender person myself, all I want is just to be accepted. That's it. No big discussions about it, just treated as any other hetero-normative, socially 'acceptable' person. No debates needed. Shouldn't even be a point for talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?