Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM

Title: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
So, we are having another "scandal" in Poland, as a relationship between two famous Polish underground fighters during WW2 has been interpreted as possibly homosexual by some researcher and the usual debate has broken lose, with the most common attitude being that of "so even if they were gay, so what? Why bring that up?"

This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

So my question really is what, in your view should be the rule here and how it should be applied - when (if at all), sexual life or sexual relationships between historical figures should be relevant to historians and when are they irrelevant?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 08, 2013, 05:51:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

Difference being that those heterosexual flings were a matter of public record and not something cobbled together by a historian trying to get some traction.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:04:12 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2013, 05:51:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

Difference being that those heterosexual flings were a matter of public record and not something cobbled together by a historian trying to get some traction.

Not always - some were kept clandestine or only rumoured/referred to in private letters.

So try again.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 08, 2013, 06:13:26 AM
Examples?


I'm generally of the opinion that even the dead deserve some privacy. Historians "outing" public figures on very limited evidence aren't much different than tabloid journalists.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Josquius on April 08, 2013, 06:15:05 AM
If you're trying to sell books to the gay community then its very relevant.
If they had a lot of gay sex in their life then sure, its relevant.
If they happened to prefer people of the same gender but didn't get up to much of that business then it depends how thorough you're being.

But yes. Doing the all too common "OMG person x was gay because he had a taste for dancing and used flowery language about his best friend! Add him to the list of great gays of history!" thing is stupid.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:17:22 AM
The only historical straight sexuality that's discussed, that i can think of,  or things like henry and his upteen wives because it changed history. And a bit about roman sexuality, but that mostly due to Victorian proudness think it caused the fall of rome. I don't recall straight sexuality discussed, or hypothesized on its own. it's always part of another aspect. Historical gayness seems to be discussed on its gayness alone.

Or maybe i don't care enough about historical sexuality to see a clear picture. Either way it annoying when people just declare someone gay because there isn't clear proof his straight. didn't get married? Gay!
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Viking on April 08, 2013, 06:20:58 AM
It is relevant to the identity politcs of today and the construction of a ghey identity. It validates modern lifestyle choices, not the choice of participating in gay sex, but the choice of defining oneself with a gay identity.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:25:24 AM
See, but even your answers and examples are about HOMOsexuality, not just sexual life in general. Which proves my point about double standards.

Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:30:24 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:17:22 AM
The only historical straight sexuality that's discussed, that i can think of,  or things like henry and his upteen wives because it changed history. And a bit about roman sexuality, but that mostly due to Victorian proudness think it caused the fall of rome. I don't recall straight sexuality discussed, or hypothesized on its own. it's always part of another aspect. Historical gayness seems to be discussed on its gayness alone.

Or maybe i don't care enough about historical sexuality to see a clear picture. Either way it annoying when people just declare someone gay because there isn't clear proof his straight. didn't get married? Gay!

Antonius and Cleopatra are discussed. Louis and Pompadour are discussed. Catherine the Great and Stas Poniatowski (or Catherine the Great and a horse) are discussed. The Borgias are discussed. Victoria and Prince Albert are discussed. Benjamin Frankling and his whores are discussed. Byron and his sister are discussed. Goethe's love affairs and their influence on his poetry are discussed. Etc.

I think your claim that historians rarely discuss sexual life of straight people is preposterous.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Tamas on April 08, 2013, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:25:24 AM
See, but even your answers and examples are about HOMOsexuality, not just sexual life in general. Which proves my point about double standards.

I think Viking is right, and I don't see the point here. Should straight sexuality be declared for every historical person? Or what? There is no straight subculture in need of an identity, and acceptance.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:33:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:25:24 AM
See, but even your answers and examples are about HOMOsexuality, not just sexual life in general. Which proves my point about double standards.


That's because sexuality on its own as no historical significance. I couldn't give two shits if alexander was gay or straight. Changes nothing. Henry being a horney sob changed history. his "straightness" matters. And historically that's where sexuality matters, where it's a reason for change or significant impact. And that's usually straight sexuality. Until relatively recently homosexuality wasn't even really persecuted. Now, if you want to talk about 20th and 21st century historical figures who were gay and persecuted for it, then that's appropriate. Going back and saying some Greek/roman/medival historical figure was gay? Meh. Besides, the further into antiquity you go the less defined sexuality is in the modern sense. It just seems weird to me.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 06:35:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:30:24 AM
Antonius and Cleopatra are discussed. Louis and Pompadour are discussed. Catherine the Great and Stas Poniatowski (or Catherine the Great and a horse) are discussed. The Borgias are discussed. Victoria and Prince Albert are discussed. Benjamin Frankling and his whores are discussed. Byron and his sister are discussed. Goethe's love affairs and their influence on his poetry are discussed. Etc.

I think your claim that historians rarely discuss sexual life of straight people is preposterous.

Those are mostly cases where romantic relationships affected policy.  In contrast, Mao's and Castro's fucking around doesn't come up much because it didn't change anything.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:30:24 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:17:22 AM
The only historical straight sexuality that's discussed, that i can think of,  or things like henry and his upteen wives because it changed history. And a bit about roman sexuality, but that mostly due to Victorian proudness think it caused the fall of rome. I don't recall straight sexuality discussed, or hypothesized on its own. it's always part of another aspect. Historical gayness seems to be discussed on its gayness alone.

Or maybe i don't care enough about historical sexuality to see a clear picture. Either way it annoying when people just declare someone gay because there isn't clear proof his straight. didn't get married? Gay!

Antonius and Cleopatra are discussed. Louis and Pompadour are discussed. Catherine the Great and Stas Poniatowski (or Catherine the Great and a horse) are discussed. The Borgias are discussed. Victoria and Prince Albert are discussed. Benjamin Frankling and his whores are discussed. Byron and his sister are discussed. Goethe's love affairs and their influence on his poetry are discussed. Etc.

I think your claim that historians rarely discuss sexual life of straight people is preposterous.
cleaparta's sexuality changed the course of two wars. Catherines lust and want to be free of her husband to rule (and screw) as she likes changed the world. Don't know much about that borgias, nor do i recall the sexuality of victoria and albet being discussed (beyond having a 100 kids who went on to rule other nations). Byron and his sister are icky, and discussed by literature nerds, not real historians, goethe's sexuality effected something (his poetry) so gets discussed. But again, that's literature nerds, they don't count :P

But like i said, i don't have the clearist picture, so maybe you're right, maybe there is a double statndard.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Tamas on April 08, 2013, 06:37:39 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:33:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:25:24 AM
See, but even your answers and examples are about HOMOsexuality, not just sexual life in general. Which proves my point about double standards.


That's because sexuality on its own as no historical significance. I couldn't give two shits if alexander was gay or straight. Changes nothing. Henry being a horney sob changed history. his "straightness" matters. And historically that's where sexuality matters, where it's a reason for change or significant impact. And that's usually straight sexuality. Until relatively recently homosexuality wasn't even really persecuted. Now, if you want to talk about 20th and 21st century historical figures who were gay and persecuted for it, then that's appropriate. Going back and saying some Greek/roman/medival historical figure was gay? Meh. Besides, the further into antiquity you go the less defined sexuality is in the modern sense. It just seems weird to me.

:yes:
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: HVC on April 08, 2013, 06:39:21 AM
misse louis. His mistresses had huge sway in the court, and that's why they're discussed.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Scipio on April 08, 2013, 06:43:06 AM
Also, breeding matters for history.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Camerus on April 08, 2013, 07:01:59 AM
When it's useful in the battle for historiography / culture wars of today - which is, after all, when all historical events are useful.   :P
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 07:08:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

Well it is not my attitude.  I have no problem at all with this discussion.  I just get annoyed when it is conjured up as common knowledge when there is little to no evidence at all to support it...which is not a double standard since I would get just as a annoyed if a heterosexual relationship was conjured out of whole cloth for shits and giggles as well.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 07:11:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 06:30:24 AM
Benjamin Franklin and his whores are discussed.

Heh.  Speaking of taking scant evidence and running with it.

Unless you are talking about his life as a young man in London but how often is that discussed?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: The Brain on April 08, 2013, 09:25:56 AM
Since homosexuals have no high status contemporary role models they desperately mine history and claim to have struck gay on the flimsiest of evidence.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
Again, I think there is a double standard there. Sure, sexual escapades of heterosexual historical figures are rarely part of History 101, but they are a subject of countless popular historical articles, books and historical novels, often also with flimsy or scant evidence (for example, it is assumed fairly often that, if two opposite sex people worked closely, they must have shared romantic feelings). However, if the same kind of approach is taken to suggest homosexual relationship, people dismiss it as irrelevant or undocumented.

For example, numerous people speculated about the relationship of FDR and Margaret Suckley (which does not meet any of the criteria you guys mentioned - it neither affected policy, nor is well documented, nor is a subject of public knowledge) and I don't remember anyone opposing such speculations.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:51:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
Again, I think there is a double standard there. Sure, sexual escapades of heterosexual historical figures are rarely part of History 101, but they are a subject of countless popular historical articles, books and historical novels, often also with flimsy or scant evidence (for example, it is assumed fairly often that, if two opposite sex people worked closely, they must have shared romantic feelings). However, if the same kind of approach is taken to suggest homosexual relationship, people dismiss it as irrelevant or undocumented.

Well I think those things are crap as well.  But we never really discuss those.

QuoteFor example, numerous people speculated about the relationship of FDR and Margaret Suckley (which does not meet any of the criteria you guys mentioned - it neither affected policy, nor is well documented, nor is a subject of public knowledge) and I don't remember anyone opposing such speculations.

His affair, his documented one, was with Lucy Mercer and it fulfills all the qualifiers.  And in any history of FDR I have ever seen with any sort of credibility that is the only one mentioned.  The rest is just scandal mongering and I take it no more seriously than what you are talking about.  I am not really sure what you want society to do for you here.  Plenty of scandal mongering goes on with gay relationships, heck they even get included in historical films and mini-series as absolute facts despite a lack of evidence.  What do you want?  Fifty foot billboards?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2013, 06:13:26 AM
I'm generally of the opinion that even the dead deserve some privacy. Historians "outing" public figures on very limited evidence aren't much different than tabloid journalists.
That's normally because tabloid journalists do the outing. Historians are engaging in academic research and normally presenting their paper, with lots of hemming and hawing. That then gets interpreted by the media.

I don't think the dead need privacy. I don't generally find biography interesting, but that's personal taste. Their sex lives shouldn't be left behind a veil for 'decency's sake'.

QuoteThat's because sexuality on its own as no historical significance. I couldn't give two shits if alexander was gay or straight. Changes nothing. Henry being a horney sob changed history. his "straightness" matters. And historically that's where sexuality matters, where it's a reason for change or significant impact. And that's usually straight sexuality. Until relatively recently homosexuality wasn't even really persecuted. Now, if you want to talk about 20th and 21st century historical figures who were gay and persecuted for it, then that's appropriate. Going back and saying some Greek/roman/medival historical figure was gay? Meh. Besides, the further into antiquity you go the less defined sexuality is in the modern sense. It just seems weird to me.
But that's your interest in history showing. Sexuality is only relevant if it shapes the actions of great men and the course of history. My perspective is that it is intrinsically interesting. This isn't an argument that sexuality's dull, but that social history doesn't matter. It's the same sort of argument that the position of women, or cultural history, or what people ate didn't matter because it didn't 'affect' the course of history like great men (if you're a liberal) or economic forces (if you're a Marxist). It's nonsense.

QuoteThose are mostly cases where romantic relationships affected policy.  In contrast, Mao's and Castro's fucking around doesn't come up much because it didn't change anything.
Mao's do, if you read any biography of him. Stalin's do. It should if you're trying to write about the 'man'. It would be bizarre to try and write a biography of a man without sexuality - in my view there's no good reason to do so, as long as you make clear the limits of your sources. I would expect, for example, any biography of the recent Popes to discuss their sexuality.

The idea reminds me of that Byron attack on Wordsworth in the prologue of Don Juan. The great nature poem seems very unnatural because of the lack of sex, there's something sterile and inward about it.

QuoteI just get annoyed when it is conjured up as common knowledge when there is little to no evidence at all to support it...which is not a double standard since I would get just as a annoyed if a heterosexual relationship was conjured out of whole cloth for shits and giggles as well.
Any examples? There is always evidence, but rarely an alleged relationship.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 08, 2013, 12:47:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
I don't think the dead need privacy.

You don't seem to think the living need it all that much either.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Razgovory on April 08, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG

Bingo.  They feel a need to justify themselves.  They search through history for someone to "claim".
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG

Bingo.  They feel a need to justify themselves.  They search through history for someone to "claim".

I'd rather take the stance that historical figures being gay is not necessary for justification.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Ed Anger on April 08, 2013, 03:12:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG

Bingo.  They feel a need to justify themselves.  They search through history for someone to "claim".

I'll let them have Tiberius.

Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 08, 2013, 03:14:55 PM
And Hadrian.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2013, 03:12:53 PM
I'll let them have Tiberius.

Like they didn't already have Liberace and Paul Lynde.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: The Brain on April 08, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
Not every Roman was gay.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Ed Anger on April 08, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2013, 03:12:53 PM
I'll let them have Tiberius.

Like they didn't already have Liberace and Paul Lynde.

Those two weren't kiddie fuckers like Tiberius. Which makes the joke funnier for me.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
Any examples? There is always evidence, but rarely an alleged relationship.

The example in this particular case is George Boleyn :P

I do not remember the others but this seems to come up from time to time.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 03:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
Those two weren't kiddie fuckers like Tiberius. Which makes the joke funnier for me.

Sure, but Tiberius never had the center square, so he's not historically relevant.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 08, 2013, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 07:10:01 AM
Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG

Bingo.  They feel a need to justify themselves.  They search through history for someone to "claim".

I don't feel the need to justify myself.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 06:15:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 03:33:00 PMThe example in this particular case is George Boleyn :P
Okay. But in all fairness those allegations - which according to wiki was about the men accused with Boleyn in general - were made 20 years ago by a heterosexual historian. They were widely debunked as inaccurate (the men weren't all charged with sodomy) and never taken seriously by academics.

They've recently been revived by a historical novelist and a TV series.

The sum of the allegations is that among historians there aren't any. Among historical novelists and screenplay writers, maybe, but they're allowed to take license and it doesn't necessarily indicate some gay trawl through history for icons.

On which subject, it's worth remembering that in terms of history, queer history is generally not interested in finding famous gay people. It's interested in the historical experience of sexuality, particularly in reference to homosexuality - see the superb book (the name escape's me) on Victorian women living together. Generally it comes from not necessarily gay specialists in a figure based on the sources.

The examples I know best are literary but the suggestions about Tennyson are pretty obvious, those about Shakespeare though are very much based in the text. Queer critics aren't actually that interested in whether Shakespeare's gay or not. They're interested in Antonio and Bassanio, Mercutio and Romeo, queer readings of a Winter's Tale, or, (in an actually very interesting essay - if it's what I think it is) things like 'Othello's Penis Or Islam in the Closet'.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:02:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 06:15:19 PM
Okay. But in all fairness those allegations - which according to wiki was about the men accused with Boleyn in general - were made 20 years ago by a heterosexual historian. They were widely debunked as inaccurate (the men weren't all charged with sodomy) and never taken seriously by academics.

Indeed.  Just to be clear I am not the guy claiming this is some sort of gay conspiracy.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 09, 2013, 03:31:52 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 06:15:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 03:33:00 PMThe example in this particular case is George Boleyn :P
Okay. But in all fairness those allegations - which according to wiki was about the men accused with Boleyn in general - were made 20 years ago by a heterosexual historian. They were widely debunked as inaccurate (the men weren't all charged with sodomy) and never taken seriously by academics.

They've recently been revived by a historical novelist and a TV series.

The sum of the allegations is that among historians there aren't any. Among historical novelists and screenplay writers, maybe, but they're allowed to take license and it doesn't necessarily indicate some gay trawl through history for icons.

On which subject, it's worth remembering that in terms of history, queer history is generally not interested in finding famous gay people. It's interested in the historical experience of sexuality, particularly in reference to homosexuality - see the superb book (the name escape's me) on Victorian women living together. Generally it comes from not necessarily gay specialists in a figure based on the sources.

The examples I know best are literary but the suggestions about Tennyson are pretty obvious, those about Shakespeare though are very much based in the text. Queer critics aren't actually that interested in whether Shakespeare's gay or not. They're interested in Antonio and Bassanio, Mercutio and Romeo, queer readings of a Winter's Tale, or, (in an actually very interesting essay - if it's what I think it is) things like 'Othello's Penis Or Islam in the Closet'.

Which is actually the confusion behind the recent furore in Poland, that I alluded to in the OP.

Essentially, a literature academic wrote a paper about how two partisans, depicted in a famous (and also romanticized, naive and pretty bad, altogether) book displayed homoerotic tendencies, and analysed the book from that perspective. But the rest of the populace took this as a claim that these historical figures (upon whose lives the book is based) were gay and obviously now you have a whole lot of old ladies who knew them saying that they weren't - and saying all kinds of homophobic old people-style crap in the process.

So it's quite a clusterfuck.

P.S. I don't think you are necessarily correct, at least not in all aspects. Sure, queer critics may not be interested if Shakespeare was gay per se, but they are interested in whether, for example, his sonets were written to a guy or a chick - so the line can be quite fine at times.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: viper37 on April 09, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
So, we are having another "scandal" in Poland, as a relationship between two famous Polish underground fighters during WW2 has been interpreted as possibly homosexual by some researcher and the usual debate has broken lose, with the most common attitude being that of "so even if they were gay, so what? Why bring that up?"

This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

So my question really is what, in your view should be the rule here and how it should be applied - when (if at all), sexual life or sexual relationships between historical figures should be relevant to historians and when are they irrelevant?
Do we really discuss the sexual life or sexual relationships or most historical figures?  I think not.  We talk about their marriage, and children.  We will talk of strange behaviors: killing their wives/husbands, multiple partners, stds, etc.  But no one says "look at this man, he was a military genius and he was heterosexual".  That's just silly.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 09, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 05:28:15 AM
So, we are having another "scandal" in Poland, as a relationship between two famous Polish underground fighters during WW2 has been interpreted as possibly homosexual by some researcher and the usual debate has broken lose, with the most common attitude being that of "so even if they were gay, so what? Why bring that up?"

This seems to be the most common attitude to revelations of this nature, even on Languish, yet I cannot help to think that there is a bit of double standard there, as we happily let historians discuss love life of heterosexual historical figures, or at least it seems so to me.

So my question really is what, in your view should be the rule here and how it should be applied - when (if at all), sexual life or sexual relationships between historical figures should be relevant to historians and when are they irrelevant?
Do we really discuss the sexual life or sexual relationships or most historical figures?  I think not.  We talk about their marriage, and children.  We will talk of strange behaviors: killing their wives/husbands, multiple partners, stds, etc.  But no one says "look at this man, he was a military genius and he was heterosexual".  That's just silly.

:hmm:

Also, I think that would be because it is implied.  Homosexuality (or homosexual behaviors) are generally not. That's what it means to be other.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 09, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?

Of course. That's why we homosexuals have to go through the dreadful process of coming out.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: dps on April 09, 2013, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:51:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
Again, I think there is a double standard there. Sure, sexual escapades of heterosexual historical figures are rarely part of History 101, but they are a subject of countless popular historical articles, books and historical novels, often also with flimsy or scant evidence (for example, it is assumed fairly often that, if two opposite sex people worked closely, they must have shared romantic feelings). However, if the same kind of approach is taken to suggest homosexual relationship, people dismiss it as irrelevant or undocumented.

Well I think those things are crap as well.  But we never really discuss those.


This.  There is lots written about the sex lives of famous historical figures, but for the most part, we just don't care.  I don't really know whether or not Ike was banging Kay Summersby, and I don't really care. 
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2013, 06:38:23 PM
This.  There is lots written about the sex lives of famous historical figures, but for the most part, we just don't care.  I don't really know whether or not Ike was banging Kay Summersby, and I don't really care.
Again I think this is about the kind of history you're into. You don't care but there's a massive section of any bookshop dedicated to biographies so people can find out about 'the man behind the myth' or whatever which includes their sex life. People do care and are interested. Similarly historical fiction is one of the best-selling genres, it's often nonsense but it's precisely about the private lives of the great.

It's only when there's a hint of homosexuality that this is objectionable or even noticed. Then, apparently, it's identity politics ruining history <_<

QuoteP.S. I don't think you are necessarily correct, at least not in all aspects. Sure, queer critics may not be interested if Shakespeare was gay per se, but they are interested in whether, for example, his sonets were written to a guy or a chick - so the line can be quite fine at times.
They're not interested in that, because there's no debate. There's 154 sonnets, about 125 are addressed to the (male) 'fair youth) and the rest are addressed to the 'dark lady'. They are also universally acknowledged as the most autobiographical of Shakespeare's work.

Queer critics are more interested in how the sonnets have been read. For example that within about 50 years publications of the sonnets routinely change the gender of the addressee in the 'fair youth' sonnets. Or that Tennyson openly admired them and was warned by friends that he shouldn't state a preference for such 'Hellenistic' poems. Their afterlife and what they suggest about same-sex relationships in the Early Modern is probably of more interest to queer critics - and rightly so, it's fascinating.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?

Of course. That's why we homosexuals have to go through the dreadful process of coming out.

So heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is a deviancy?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 09, 2013, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?

Of course. That's why we homosexuals have to go through the dreadful process of coming out.

So heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is a deviancy?

I'm not sure I'd go that far as you're now inputting emotionally/morally charged words.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 08:44:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
It's only when there's a hint of homosexuality that this is objectionable or even noticed. Then, apparently, it's identity politics ruining history <_<

Heh.  That is weird my experience is that people readily accept so-and-so was gay uncritically that is why I tend to say something about it.  And then we get crap like Braveheart where Piers Gaveston and Edward act like modern homosexual stereotypes.  I get that that historical person being gay is interesting and exciting and all that but we need to be true to the sources.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 09, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
I'm not sure hollywood movies are places where we need to be true to the sources. ;)
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 08:55:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
I'm not sure hollywood movies are places where we need to be true to the sources. ;)

I was young then :P

I was so angry by everything wrong in that movie I may have never watched another Hollywood history movie again. :blush:
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 09:00:44 PM
Indeed. The other thing is that I think we tend to project our sexuality onto the past in Hollywood movies anyway - look at William Wallace's relationship in the same movie, which is far more historically problematic - I mean if real couples engaged in Hollywood style displays of affection it would've been scandalous.

But it's tough for a film to present historically accurate sexual conduct without handing out a guidebook beforehand. Our expectations are that if people are in love, or in a relationship, then they can demonstrate it and do things to show it. The way we represent things changes. Now we're not where we were in the 90s in terms of representation of the gays maybe we can have a more subtle depiction of Edward's 'undue' intimacy with Gaveston. But that still wouldn't be accurate.

For some reason it makes me think of that Salman Rushdie character (I think in Midnight's Children) who makes his millions by coming up with fruit in Bollywood films. He can't show someone kissing so one character would bite an apple, then the other character would. For that his scripts make him a lot of money and inspire a lot of copycats, but without the context of not showing kissing it doesn't make much sense.

I know I may be the only one, but I find the more interesting issue, and the one queer history tends to be about, is what sexuality was actually like in the past. For example, what were Medieval people doing before they got married, normally in their late twenties?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: dps on April 09, 2013, 09:36:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 09:00:44 PM
For example, what were Medieval people doing before they got married, normally in their late twenties?

Dying young, mostly.  ;)
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Razgovory on April 10, 2013, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?

Of course. That's why we homosexuals have to go through the dreadful process of coming out.

So heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is a deviancy?

I'm not sure I'd go that far as you're now inputting emotionally/morally charged words.

Maybe you should rethink your position then.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Josquius on April 10, 2013, 12:37:16 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 09:00:44 PM
I know I may be the only one, but I find the more interesting issue, and the one queer history tends to be about, is what sexuality was actually like in the past. For example, what were Medieval people doing before they got married, normally in their late twenties?

The whole craftsman apprenticeship seniority system does kind of have a whiff of public school  style homosexuality about it....
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Agelastus on April 10, 2013, 04:32:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 08:55:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
I'm not sure hollywood movies are places where we need to be true to the sources. ;)

I was young then :P

I was so angry by everything wrong in that movie I may have never watched another Hollywood history movie again. :blush:

I remember sitting and watching it with an uncle who insisted on pointing out that metallurgy was not good enough for the period to do what one character was doing while I was privately wondering where the Bridge had gone at the battle of Stirling Bridge...

I loathe that film...
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 10, 2013, 05:15:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 08:44:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
It's only when there's a hint of homosexuality that this is objectionable or even noticed. Then, apparently, it's identity politics ruining history <_<

Heh.  That is weird my experience is that people readily accept so-and-so was gay uncritically that is why I tend to say something about it.  And then we get crap like Braveheart where Piers Gaveston and Edward act like modern homosexual stereotypes.  I get that that historical person being gay is interesting and exciting and all that but we need to be true to the sources.

I can assure you that this movie is considered homophobic and a disgrace, rather than being considered favourably by gay people.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: garbon on April 10, 2013, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2013, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2013, 05:57:00 PM
It is?

Of course. That's why we homosexuals have to go through the dreadful process of coming out.

So heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is a deviancy?

I'm not sure I'd go that far as you're now inputting emotionally/morally charged words.

Maybe you should rethink your position then.

You haven't given me any reason to.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Viking on April 10, 2013, 08:33:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2013, 05:15:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 08:44:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
It's only when there's a hint of homosexuality that this is objectionable or even noticed. Then, apparently, it's identity politics ruining history <_<

Heh.  That is weird my experience is that people readily accept so-and-so was gay uncritically that is why I tend to say something about it.  And then we get crap like Braveheart where Piers Gaveston and Edward act like modern homosexual stereotypes.  I get that that historical person being gay is interesting and exciting and all that but we need to be true to the sources.

I can assure you that this movie is considered homophobic and a disgrace, rather than being considered favourably by gay people.

Isn't that just because Gibson is a homophobe and a disgrace?
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Malthus on April 10, 2013, 09:29:30 AM
The sex lives of famous historical figures are of interest in three ways:

(1) The same as any other celebrity - because scandal and gossip about people we know about is of inherent interest (if only for amusement) and may, arguably, shed some light on their character.

(2) Obviously, most modern Western people (well, educated ones) do not regard engaging in homosexual acts as a "scandal" in and of itself - but people in the past did, in many cases. The fact that the accusation or imputation was made can be of historical interest concerning the motives of the people making the accusation or imputation. Same with having affairs.

(3) If the particular sexual relationships at issue affected their behaviour and motives in ways that lent an impact on history, it is obviously worth exploring. Did Edward the 2nd have what amounted to affairs with male courtiers? Did this piss off his wife Isabella, leading her in return to take Mortimer as her lover? If so, it is significant.
Title: Re: Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?
Post by: Martinus on April 10, 2013, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 10, 2013, 09:29:30 AM
The sex lives of famous historical figures are of interest in three ways:

(1) The same as any other celebrity - because scandal and gossip about people we know about is of inherent interest (if only for amusement) and may, arguably, shed some light on their character.

(2) Obviously, most modern Western people (well, educated ones) do not regard engaging in homosexual acts as a "scandal" in and of itself - but people in the past did, in many cases. The fact that the accusation or imputation was made can be of historical interest concerning the motives of the people making the accusation or imputation. Same with having affairs.

(3) If the particular sexual relationships at issue affected their behaviour and motives in ways that lent an impact on history, it is obviously worth exploring. Did Edward the 2nd have what amounted to affairs with male courtiers? Did this piss off his wife Isabella, leading her in return to take Mortimer as her lover? If so, it is significant.

I think what you are saying is true mainly for political leaders.

There are also other aspects that may be of interest, e.g. for artists, and how/whether that influenced their art. The fact that the muscular Jesus in Michaelangelo's Last Judgement has a face of his lover is significant for his work's interpretation (which otherwise would have been a pretty canon counter-reformation agit prop, but suddenly becomes quite subversive).