Is sexual life of historical figures relevant and, if so, when?

[Martinus]

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?

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Josquius]

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.

[HVC]

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!

[Viking]

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.

[Martinus]

See, but even your answers and examples are about HOMOsexuality, not just sexual life in general. Which proves my point about double standards.

[Martinus]

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.

[Tamas]

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.

[HVC]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[HVC]

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

But like i said, i don't have the clearist picture, so maybe you're right, maybe there is a double statndard.

[Tamas]

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.

[HVC]

misse louis. His mistresses had huge sway in the court, and that's why they're discussed.