100 Years of Photographs of Gay Men in Love

[awty]

That's because we like nice things that match the drapes.

A very admirable skill set.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

the idea of such a thing was inconceivable to the 19th century mind

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Phew... this thread needs a breather. Ice tea anyone?

 

[Don_ih]

There was no "gay" to be.

Once again, you're caught up in the language of now. You'd just not understanding what I'm saying.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

With gay people closeted for such a long time, I’d imagine curation is difficult. I remember back in the 90s I saw Robert Maplethorpe’s and thought nothing of it. But his work caused a stir with NEA funding.

 

[BrianShaw]

Phew... this thread needs a breather. Ice tea anyone?

Lemon, no sugar please v

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Don't Arab male friends hold hands in countries where homosexuality is frowned upon??

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

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?

 

[Cloudy]

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 think you're missing the point here and I suggest you have a look at "history of sexuality" by Focault to understand better the other person's posts

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Damn this ice tea is good.

 

[vickersdc]

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.

 

[btaylor]

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.

Great response, thank you.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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?

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.

 

[vickersdc]

@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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

@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.

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.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks, FC. I don't know why people who don't want to read stuff take the time to keep reading it, and to keep complaining about what they have read.

 

[sionnac]

This looks excellent, thank you!

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.

 

[sionnac]

Agreed, this is a discussion about this book. I recommend listening to the podcast interview in the link I posted at the top of the post.

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.

 

[sionnac]

Oops sorry I posted the link bit not at the top, here it is again, a great interview with authors and collectors Hugh Nini and Neal Treadwell, about the collection and the book. https://www.buzzsprout.com/1020073/...otographic-history-of-men-in-love-1850s-1950s