Are gays overrepresented among horror story creators and if so why?

[Josquius]

Gay people are over-represented in the arts in general.
Meh.

[Sheilbh]

Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay?  So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay.  Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester?  Why do we always assume gay?  There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one?  Or is this somehow "empowering".  An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.

What do you mean by so many?

I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.

It's not empowering or anything like that.  It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal.  We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed.  There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document.  That's interesting.  The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.

It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II.  There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them.  However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating.  For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.

[LaCroix]

Gay people are over-represented in the arts in general.
Meh.

disagreed. especially with how many works there are in general. i think they are well within they're right, whatever work it may be

[Martinus]

Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay?  So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay.  Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester?  Why do we always assume gay?  There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one?  Or is this somehow "empowering".  An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.

What do you mean by so many?

I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.

It's not empowering or anything like that.  It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal.  We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed.  There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document.  That's interesting.  The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.

It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II.  There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them.  However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating.  For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.

Every time someone quotes some idiotic post by Raz I am reassured that my decision to put Raz on the ignore list was a correct one. Languish is much more readable when I don't have to look at his shit.

[Viking]

'meh, they just want to see the pretty popular straight couple killed early on.

[Sheilbh]

The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love.  I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John.  But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John.  He was until he was exhumed after beatification.

I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years.  That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate. 

The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid.  We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love. 

[Razgovory]

Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay?  So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay.  Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester?  Why do we always assume gay?  There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one?  Or is this somehow "empowering".  An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.

What do you mean by so many?

I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.

It's not empowering or anything like that.  It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal.  We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed.  There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document.  That's interesting.  The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.

It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II.  There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them.  However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating.  For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.

It's pretty common claim made about historical figures.  Often the only good reason is that they never married or showed interest in women.  Is homosexuality more common then pedophilia?  One is legal and the other isn't.  I'd say it's hard to tell.  I think more people would admit to homosexual impulses then pedophilic ones.  Psychoanalyzing historical figures has been a popular past time for a hundred years at the least, but why is homosexuality the one brought up.  There seems to be assumption that if someone isn't interested in women they automatically are gay.  Why not other sexual taboos? 

[Razgovory]

The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love.  I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John.  But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John.  He was until he was exhumed after beatification.

I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years.  That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate. 

The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid.  We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.

A high level of love?  Perhaps people in the past divorced love from sex.

[Eddie Teach]

Edgar Allan Poe was a much greater horror story writer(and artist in general) than Joel Schumacher btw.

[CountDeMoney]

The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love.  I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John.  But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John.  He was until he was exhumed after beatification.

I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years.  That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate. 

The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid.  We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.

Newton wasn't gay.  You people see that shit everywhere.  It validates you.

[Viking]

Edgar Allan Poe was a much greater horror story writer(and artist in general) than Joel Schumacher btw.

but, Poe was a really piss poor filmmaker

[Razgovory]

Newton wasn't gay.  You people see that shit everywhere.  It validates you.

That is my suspicion.

[Sheilbh]

It's pretty common claim made about historical figures.  Often the only good reason is that they never married or showed interest in women. ...  There seems to be assumption that if someone isn't interested in women they automatically are gay.   

Give me some examples.  Otherwise I think you've just got a general impression without anything to back it up.  I can't think of a single example where the only good reason is that they didn't marry.

Why not other sexual taboos?

First of all you need to separate out homosexuality from 'sexual taboos'.  If you focus on homosexuality as a series of sexual acts then I think you're criticism is justified.  People are going through history announcing that various people are posing sodomtites often with little justification.  My argument would be that homosexuality isn't comparable with aberrant sexual behaviour because.  It's like heterosexuality in that sense.  I think it is highly likely that Cardinal Newman was celibate and gay - that, based on the little I know, would be what I'd understand of Newton too.  So heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't about sexual acts but a pattern of attractions and relationships.  Incorporating that into your historical view is interesting because it's been suppressed and silenced for so long but also because it casts a new light on the subject.  James I become a rather sadder figure, though his devotion to Villiers is more comprehensible if - aside from sex - he loved him.  Similarly if you think of Tennyson in a gay way then he becomes, in my view, an incredible love poet - which is rather different from the image we have of him

Secondly you seem to think there's no evidentiary basis and so we should say, well, he was clearly fucking goats because there's no indication otherwise.  As I say, on that you're wrong.  I can't think of a case that isn't reasonably evidenced.  In addition where there is historical evidence of sexually aberrant behaviour then it does go on the record.  We know that Byron fucked his sister, we also know that as a young man he fucked a choirboy.  That's on the record and I think the general view is that Byron was probably bisexual in addition to those deviances.  Similarly Benjamin Britten was the Michael Jackson of his day.   There's no evidence from any child that he abused them, but he did sleep (physically) with choirboys and was repeatedly attracted to one type.  Again this is something we know based on the evidence.

Perhaps the reason we don't go through history accusing people of being paedos or into bestiality is because those are aberrations that cause right-thinking people to judge them differently, that is - or should be - a world away from homosexuality.  All speculation should be based on evidence and it is, but if you're going to trash someone's record by accusing them of sexually abusing children then you should have more of it than is required for suggesting that actually chaste Newman loved chaste St. John.

A high level of love?  Perhaps people in the past divorced love from sex.

I think you need to read that post again and see where I say otherwise.

[HVC]

And I already regret unbanning you

This is what happens when he is allowed to return early from a ban.

revenge is best served in the form of gay threads

[Josephus]

It is pretty easy since the concept of being heterosexual versus homosexual is a pretty recent invention.  Since nobody comes out and says 'I am not gay' or 'I am gay' you just sorta have to guess.  Since nobody knew at the time that having sex with men, or not having sex with them, meant you had this profound identity meaning they did not make it very clear to posterity.

You're onto something here. I just finished reading Into The Silence, The Great War, Mallory and the Conquest of Everest (one book, long title). And all those great, and heterosexual, climbers were all boinking each other in their formative years in the British boarding school system, because it was something to do.
I think that, ironically, even though back then gay sex was ostracized and hush-hushed, as opposed to now, more men were freely doing it. Maybe cause women, at a young age, were so hard to get into.