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

[Scipio]

Also, breeding matters for history.

[Camerus]

When it's useful in the battle for historiography / culture wars of today - which is, after all, when all historical events are useful.   

[Valmy]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Gays love projecting gay shit on historical figures.  It makes them feel relevant.  LINCOLN WAS A BIG FAG

[Valmy]

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?

[The Brain]

Since homosexuals have no high status contemporary role models they desperately mine history and claim to have struck gay on the flimsiest of evidence.

[Martinus]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

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.

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?

[Sheilbh]

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any examples? There is always evidence, but rarely an alleged relationship.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think the dead need privacy.

You don't seem to think the living need it all that much either.

[Razgovory]

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".

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

[Ed Anger]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

And Hadrian.

[CountDeMoney]

I'll let them have Tiberius.

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