Dear Friends: American Photgraphs of Men Together

October 15, 2002 1:32 PM

Dear Friends: American Photgraphs of Men Together Partially inspired by the male imagery I found when reading this MeTa thread, I went looking for imagery of men expressing affection in non-pornographic photography, and was extremely affected by this particular exhibition. We would classify these images today as homoerotic. But are they truly such, or merely our interpretation of how men "should" behave toward one another in the 21st century projected onto 19th and early 20th century imagery? And why aren't men allowed to be as touchingly affectionate toward one another today as they were more than 100 years ago?
posted by WolfDaddy (63 comments total)

I was just noticing this weekend that what my friends and I like to call the “dude hug” is becoming very popular. This is a firm handshake followed by the boys pulling themselves into a hug while remaining in a handshake. This is usually followed by a bold push out of the hug and both boys back up aggressively.

This is much more touchy than let’s say I ever saw my dad interact with another guy, so perhaps this whole “…why aren't men allowed to be as touchingly affectionate toward one another today…” is changing with the younger generations.
posted by bmxGirl at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2002

This is a firm handshake followed by the boys pulling themselves into a hug while remaining in a handshake. This is usually followed by a bold push out of the hug and both boys back up aggressively.

It's important to maintain the handshake, because if you release it, they might have time to go for their weapon and stab you in the back. Same deal for the quick extraction, as soon as you release, you gotta get some distance so you can see if they are trying to make a move.

*grunt*
posted by malphigian at 2:05 PM on October 15, 2002

This is soo freaky, Wolf: I accessed this same site today through a graphic of phrenology/physiognomy here. After looking at that picture from a Google search, I edited the URL in the address blank back to http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/dear_friends/ to look for the source site, and ended up on the same page as you (and thought to myself, "Gee, old b&w photos of men in close contact look really not Victorian.")
posted by Shane at 2:05 PM on October 15, 2002

Thinking out loud:

This could be a negative side-effect of the social stigma of public homosexuality being lifted. While society as a whole has become more accepting of homosexuality, it's caused the majority of straight guys to make it more obvious, sometimes through over-dramatic efforts, that they are not "one of them". If you ask most straight guys out in society these days, they will admit (or lie) that they are okay with homosexuality. But if you ask them if they are gay, you tend to get very vehemently negative answers. One more stigma for the public to grind our way through I suppose.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:06 PM on October 15, 2002

An Anglo-Saxon problem? Male friends commonly hold hands in public throughout much of the Indian subcontinent and other parts of Asia. And of course continental European men embrace and kiss one another.
posted by Dan Brilliant at 2:07 PM on October 15, 2002

I noticed a few days ago I was watching a hockey game and two players on the bench were on the "kiss cam" and they gave eachother a quick kiss, mentioned here, and they weren't even European.

I have noticed heterosexual men being a little less uptight about touching lately.
posted by bobo123 at 2:08 PM on October 15, 2002

Shame that the exhibit seems to be gone... all I'm getting are a couple pages of introductory text. Am I missing something?
posted by silusGROK at 2:08 PM on October 15, 2002

bobo123: "...a kiss on the Jumbotron ..."
Wish I'd seen that...
posted by dash_slot- at 2:12 PM on October 15, 2002

Good link, WolfDaddy.

I agree with Ufez, and I guess the curator of the exhibit. What we impose on these pictures from our current point of view is distorted by the current notion of "homosexual" vs. "not homosexual." Although I'm sure pre-20th century men were plenty neurotic in their own ways, and probably had what we'd now call "latent tendencies," they sure seem a lot more physically comfortable around each other than most men I know, and I doubt many, if any, of them were lovers.
posted by soyjoy at 2:12 PM on October 15, 2002

Very click-worthy.
posted by anathema at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2002

Vis10n: scroll down and click on "next".
posted by goethean at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2002

And why aren't men allowed to be as touchingly affectionate toward one another today as they were more than 100 years ago?

Because 100 years ago men were, by default, men.

These days, there is no default. We have to assume that every man could be homosexual, for fear of accidentally offending him and getting a lawsuit on our hands. We have to end any mention of homosexuality with "not that there's anything wrong with that". Most of all, we have to walk around knowing that everyone's treating us as if we could be gay too.

So we overcompensate in the other direction. We don't hug, we don't touch each other, and we don't express feelings toward each other. Since we're no longer assumed to be heterosexual by default, we have to make an extra effort to make sure that we're categorized correctly.
posted by oissubke at 2:19 PM on October 15, 2002

speak for yourself. some of us hug our friends and don't give a shit what people think.
posted by goethean at 2:20 PM on October 15, 2002

This is usually followed by a bold push out of the hug and both boys back up aggressively.

Does aggression translate to affection these days, or does it serve as an acceptable substitute that's considered worthy of public display? I note that professional sports often has male teammates offering expressions of affection or elation (the butt pat, the "let's slam our chests together" move, the huggy yet still aggressive high-five) that are masked over with aggressive tendencies ... as if the males in question both want to express their affection for one another while still making the point that this is manly, which seems to explain the aggressive elements to such displays (as if aggression was strictly a male trait).

It worries me that modern American males are soooooooooo touchy about their feelings, and how they display those feelings. It borders on the paranoid if you ask me, and I see the increased display of male-male affection/aggression more worrisome than laudatory.

On preview: oissubke I guess that would explain your declamation here? ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:22 PM on October 15, 2002

Um... I did hit "next"... and got all of four pages. Either that's a very small exhibition, or we're not getting the whole thing.

As for the physical thing... it's not that recent of a development: the working man of the 50s was hardly the affectionate sort. Which may explain why their children up and became a bunch of hippies.

Hm.
posted by silusGROK at 2:26 PM on October 15, 2002

Very sweet. Thanks, Wolfy!
posted by dash_slot- at 2:27 PM on October 15, 2002

It's important to maintain the handshake, because if you release it, they might have time to go for their weapon and stab you in the back.

Wasn't the handshake originally to ensure the other guy had nothing (like a weapon) up his sleeve? Maybe that's in the site, even--I haven't read the entire thing yet (shame on me, commenting before reading thoroughly). I always assumed the salute originated from shielding your eyes from the sun, too...
posted by Shane at 2:30 PM on October 15, 2002

"...of course continental European men embrace and kiss one another."

Yeah, but Europeans are a bunch of fags.

I'm not sure I'd classify all of those images as homoerotic, but some of them definitely lean to that side, for example, the bathing suit-clad hand-on-the-knee pic, and the umbrella-holding guys, and the two sitting in the quarter-moon. Them guys is gay.

In all seriousness, I note with interest my own family photo album, where inevitably after male children reach the age of about ten the father's hand that was casually draped across the boy's shoulder in the prior year's picture now hangs at his side, and dad has moved ever-so-slightly away from his son. I've made the effort to continue showing affection to my sons, now 14 and 12, but it has definitely been a conscious effort. It's a difficult cycle to break.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:32 PM on October 15, 2002

"We don't hug, we don't touch each other, and we don't express feelings toward each other."
posted by oissubke at 2:19 PM PST on October 15

What a shame. So many of my friends - that are straight - hug me - who's gay - and each other - again, straight - that it is now the default.

What's to lose?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:34 PM on October 15, 2002

what goethean said
posted by dolface at 2:38 PM on October 15, 2002

it was a great exhibition, but it was impossible to walk through it and not think "lovers", "lovers", "lovers", etc.....even setting aside past ideas of masculine friendship and displays of affection--one guy sitting on another's lap is a bit much, unless they're lovers....i was thrilled by it, but found it inconceivable that they were all straight (and we'll never know)...

my family all kissed and hugged each other, whether male-make, or male-female, or female-female....maybe it's an ethnic thing?
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on October 15, 2002

"Them guys is gay."
Umm, why aren't we considering that maybe some of those people are gay? I mean, Walt Whitman, fer chrissakes? [on preview, I'm seconding amberglow]
posted by Gilbert at 2:40 PM on October 15, 2002

yeah, there's a big cultural stigma to seeming "gay" but like i also think that's why sports fotos of men casually hugging hugging, touching and celebrating each other are so popular on yahoo! the internet reflects our dreams, our desires and our fantasies :D
posted by kliuless at 2:42 PM on October 15, 2002

The next step, oissubke, is to get away from categories altogether and revert to a state where homosexual and heterosexual are not distinct subcultures.

Ever noticed in gay personals men describing themselves as "straight-acting" and seeking same? I don't think it's all men trying to stay in the closet. I think that part of being "straight-acting" is not making your sexuality the defining aspect of your life.

If there's a rise in the straight-actors, oissubke, anxious hetero's will have to invent more and more bizarre practises to assert their place at the end of the spectrum. How much easier it would be to ditch the whole thing, including even the notion of a spectrum with its implications of positions and fixedness, and just let people do what they do.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:44 PM on October 15, 2002

oops: male-male

(also, don't forget that Whitman, etc were getting all they wanted-sexually and romantically--whether or not they self-identified as "gay" or "homosexual")

and on preview: gilbert--that's exactly what i mean
posted by amberglow at 2:45 PM on October 15, 2002

oissubke: Because 100 years ago men were, by default, men.

Uhh, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but homosexual men are still, by default, men.

I think what you're describing is more a result of homosexuality becoming a more open behavior, which causes a corresponding rise in homophobia.

Random tangential thought - you know the bumper sticker that says "Straight but not narrow"? While I think that's quite clever, and I like the sentiment behind it, doesn't it seem somewhat defensive? Like, "Hey, I support homosexuals and everything, but of course I'm not gay"? A friend gave this sticker to me as a gift, and I've debated whether or not to paste it on my car for this reason.
posted by UKnowForKids at 2:53 PM on October 15, 2002

Clarification:

I meant what I said, though I said it with tongue in cheek. I should have peppered it with some "not that there's anything wrong with that" and "I have friends who are gay" statements, but I left them out in the interest of brevity.

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not a homophobe, I'm not a gay basher, and I'm not insecure in my own sexuality, even though I did leave out the apparently obligatory PC disclaimers.

I was attempting to explain a hypothetical cause for the question posed by the original post, not saying "This is how it is and this is how it should be."

Now get your hand off my behind.
posted by oissubke at 2:53 PM on October 15, 2002

...in gay personals men describing themselves as "straight-acting" and seeking same? I don't think it's all men trying to stay in the closet. I think that part of being "straight-acting" is not making your sexuality the defining aspect of your life...

Actually, there's a lot amount of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination against "flaming queens" and flamboyance in general in the gay community..."straight-acting" almost always means that they (the ad poster) are very uncomfortable around men who don't fit the general masculine mold men in America are supposed to fit into....It's really their personal issue and not an advancement of any ideas they have about sexuality's place in their life...They usually haven't learned that some of the toughest, butchest men wear pumps! : >
posted by amberglow at 3:03 PM on October 15, 2002

joe's_spleen: excellent point ... perhaps if we reverted to a state where affectionate and romantic feelings are expressed comfortably regardless of gender (in fact Michel Foucault suggested physical and sexual affection between males is a naturally occurring state completely outside the realm of relationships men have with women, with only the limiting (and binary) labels applied from the 18th century onward leading to our present social state) we'd see less "straight-acting" ads as well as websites that cater to "amateur straight guys" having sex with other "straight" guys.

Not to mention the overwhelming number of "Married M4M" AOL and IRC chat rooms

And oissubke, have you met crash's hot ass yet?
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:04 PM on October 15, 2002

But it's cute. Can you blame us?
posted by allaboutgeorge at 3:05 PM on October 15, 2002

This is a wonderful glimpse of the way things were. How interesting that non-sexual affection between men fell to suspicion while similar affection between women remain culturally ingrained. I'm very blessed to have the best friend ever, and that neither he nor I ever felt compelled to limit how we express our love for each other... even his wife finds our goofy rituals and physicality funny and refreshing. In Spain and France, even today, men who carry on as such are frequently seen, and seldom questioned.
posted by moonbird at 3:22 PM on October 15, 2002

I remember a linguistics professor talking about the "patting on the back" hug that men do with one another... Turning something that could be construed as an embrace into an aggressive action.

I guess I'm pretty guilty of that one... I can't remember the last time I hugged a male friend/relative without giving them the old rapid back-patting, or... my new favorite, the closed fist double tap.
posted by cadastral at 3:37 PM on October 15, 2002

I remember a linguistics professor talking about the "patting on the back" hug that men do with one another...

Oh, that.

We really just use the embrace as an excuse to burp eachother.
posted by jonmc at 3:41 PM on October 15, 2002

I'm perplexed by those who seem to think American men have gotten more reluctant to touch each other. My memories go way back to the fifties, and I assure them it's not true. Straight men touched each other only to shake hands back then (and it better have been a firm handshake), and this began changing only in (if I recall correctly) the late sixties, what with the touchy-feelie stuff and the dope and all. My father, who's well into his eighties, only learned to hug his sons (very awkwardly) in the last couple of decades, and he's begun occasionally muttering "I love you" even more recently. One small step for a man, mirroring a large change for (American) mankind.
posted by languagehat at 3:53 PM on October 15, 2002

"straight-acting" almost always means that they (the ad poster) are very uncomfortable around men who don't fit the general masculine mold men in America are supposed to fit into....It's really their personal issue and not an advancement of any ideas they have about sexuality's place in their life..

i don't have much experience of being with gay people - only one fairly close friend was gay that i know of, and he seemed pretty normal to me - but i was at a friend's wedding some years ago and was quite uncomfortable with the rowdy, whistling overt "gay" behaviour of some of the guests. i wondered why at the time (being somewhat surprised - my first reaction was that i must have a "problem" with gays that i had never noticed before), but these days i believe that (while i can't discount some subliminal homophobia) it's more down to feeling alienated by the difference in culture - i've had similar experiences living in s america (i'm english by birth and moved out here only a year or so ago).

anyway, what i'm trying to say is, why can't these "straight acting" men simply be looking for people who behave in what, to them, is the "normal" way for their culture (ie culture defined by how they were raised etc rather than by other gays)?

incidentally, while living here, i've also learnt to touch people more. it doesn't make any difference, as far as i can tell - it's just the correct behaviour for the environment. i can communicate with, and feel close to, a reticent, distant englishman as easy (easier, given the lack of language problems) as i can to a touchy-feely latino... so i'm not sure what the big advantage is: if you want to communicate, you can communicate in any social structure; if you don't know how to communicate then i doubt that enforced hugging is going to help.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:53 PM on October 15, 2002

UKnowForKids: I don't think it's defensive. I took it as "I don't have to be gay to accept gays." When working for a local anti-descrimination law I found a lot of people believed only gays were for the law. In my presentations I closed by using the hook that I was a "Breeder for Fairness."

I think the bumpersticker is aimed at those straights who descriminate. It reminds them that it isn't a simple "us against them."
posted by ?! at 4:08 PM on October 15, 2002

Tim Robbins attributes the popularity and success of The Shawshank Redemption (#2 on IMDb's Top 250 films) to the film's portrayal of a close friendship (love) between heterosexual men, and I think he's right. It strikes a chord because it is something that we are missing/craving in our society.

In the West, men don't really have an outlet for showing physical affection except in sports, where it is acceptable to hug, kiss, and even pat one another on the butt. Of course, athletes are actually showing us how hetero they really are: "We are so straight that we can embrace and grab each other's asses and it doesn't mean a thing!"

The rest of us should take a page out of their book.
posted by Devils Slide at 4:11 PM on October 15, 2002

George Bush just needs hugs, from men. Short men, tall men, fat men, skinny men. Men of color, men at work, men who swing both ways. Hugs. Hugs from mustachioed chaps, hugs from the hairless, hugs from jocks and hugs from poets. He probably needs a real hug from his dad.

Nothing makes me more happy as a straight man, than to be around men who hug and wear their humanity on their sleeve. (((Great link WolfDaddy)))
posted by crasspastor at 4:24 PM on October 15, 2002

posted by UKnowForKids at 2:53 PM PST on October 15 :
Random tangential thought - you know the bumper sticker that says "Straight but not narrow"? While I think that's quite clever, and I like the sentiment behind it, doesn't it seem somewhat defensive? Like, "Hey, I support homosexuals and everything, but of course I'm not gay"? A friend gave this sticker to me as a gift, and I've debated whether or not to paste it on my car for this reason.

Yeah, I've wavered on that one myself. It /can/ sound defensive, but I don't think it necessarily does. It's my preference to not label or categorize myself, and I (fairly successfully) fight the urge to put other people in boxes. So coming from that perspective, I wouldn't display the bumper sticker. It's more my style to wear a shirt saying "nobody knows I'm a lesbian" over my pregnant belly while holding hands with my partner of the opposite sex. Keep 'em guessing, you know?
posted by raedyn at 4:30 PM on October 15, 2002

The film version of Shawshank does a much better job of communicating that affection than did the Stephen King short story on which it was based, let me tell you, and it's the better of the two for it, if you ask me. All I remember about the King story is that there were some wank-worthy scenes. One of the few cases where the movie based on a book/story turns out to be better than its source material.

Actually a lot of King's work (horrific work, that is; I stopped reading him after The Tommyknockers) seems to devolve into borderline pedophila or other pathology (plain ol' homosexuality included) as a result of a lack of a fatherly male influence to provide affection for the male character involved. Interesting.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:31 PM on October 15, 2002

"Straight but not narrow"?

What is straight, referring to genitalia. Yes, when it is gay from the affection of a woman it's some what straight at an attention yet not perfectly. Or am I mis-informed formed. Narrow, well I hope not for anyone unless you like the feeing of all air. ;P

PS, the European greet no problem, my problem was remembering which side to start with w/o colliding and is it two or three pecks, I was only going with the flow....seemed like some did more pecks than others.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:34 PM on October 15, 2002

andrew, don't your own experiences tell you that there is no "normal" way for anyone to act? we constantly exchange one role for another with attendant behavior (at work, at home, with friends, with family, with lovers,etc)

We're all brought up to be hetero (straight), and "straight-acting" is an offensive term to some, because it states that there is a straight way to act that's somehow more acceptable....i don't know if you'll know the references, but John-Boy Walton and Chandler from Friends are really good examples of non-"straight-acting" straight guys...There are men in the world who are effeminate to one degree or another (just as there are "mannish" women)...people have to be able to be whoever they are, and not fit into a narrow definition of what a "normal" man is or a normal woman, etc...and no gay man is really "straight-acting" in bed or when expressing his love for another man because that certainly doesn't fit "the "normal" way for their culture (ie culture defined by how they were raised etc..."
posted by amberglow at 4:38 PM on October 15, 2002

?!
You raise a good point about dispelling the Us vs Them mentality. Although I've often experienced severely homophobic people telling me I'm "as bad as one of them". So even if I do call myself straight, I'm still the 'enemy'.
posted by raedyn at 4:39 PM on October 15, 2002

oh, but everyone knows that Chandler's really a cypher for a gay man, and Monica's just his beard, right? Right??

To be honest, the dishonesty involved in the phrase 'straight-acting' is the acting part. What if you want a different role?

Anyway, as a gay man who's not particularly 'effeminate', (just prone to the occassional squeal), I want the 'Straight but not Narrow'* bumper sticker. It's a good pun (",)

* 2nd only to the classic: 'My car is alarmed - It must be the way I drive it' !
posted by dash_slot- at 5:08 PM on October 15, 2002

I was given the book described in the link as a catalogue about a year and a half ago. The man who gave it to me is writing a book about homoeroticism in the Old West, where women were few and men were, uh, tough. The interesting thing is of course the definitions. I looked through that book and thought "Wow, a bunch of queers in the olden days!" There's not really any reason to think there are more or fewer gay men or lesbians now, but obviously it's easier to come out. So homosexuality takes on a different meaning. Maybe it was easier for straight men to show affection. Maybe there was also more incentive to create photos like this, since opportunities for celebrating homosexual love were a lot rarer.

I happen to have six or seven fairly close straight male friends who have no problem hugging me or even kissing me on the lips when we meet. There are others who won't, but among those are a number of gay men. So the issue of male-male physical intimacy is perhaps a complex issue. Girls still play with dolls and boys still like sports. The defining issue is really personal comfort. I've had close friends who were drag queens and nelly guys since I came out, but I get turned on by men (and women) without affectations. This kind of conditioning isn't going to disappear overnight.
posted by divrsional at 5:28 PM on October 15, 2002

that book sounds cool, divrsional! When is it coming out? (bad pun i know)

but when is a behavior natural and when an affectation?
posted by amberglow at 5:39 PM on October 15, 2002

Yeah, but Europeans are a bunch of fags.

We're not! That's just what our women say, because they're jealous.

Great thread! If I may weigh in with my usual unwelcome slice of life, here in Latin Europe everyone, whether male or female; gay, straight or undecided; happy or sad; paws, punches, kisses, hugs and pinches each other. For a long time. As opposed to, say, the English or French poseurs who just pretend to (air) kiss.

Portugal is particular inasmuch as sex is verbalized against one's preference. If you're gay and meet a female friend, you say "Would that I were straight, I'd fuck you into Kingdom come just as soon as go another week without seeing you." If you're straight and meet a gay friend, you say (sincerely - it has to be sincerely): "Oh shit! You're giving me the horn and putting a lifetime's persecution of women to a glorious end."

Another person's face, flesh, smell and volume (no matter how ugly) is always a nice, warm sensation. Even if you can't stand him or her.

There are ways of warmly hugging which precisely indicate just how much you hate the huggee's guts.

Sex is sex and life is life. Life takes up more time and lasts longer. Learn from the experts!

P.S. : Dash_slot-: I knew you were coming on to me with all that deaming spires "return to Oxford" shite! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:39 PM on October 15, 2002

In fact, If I'd known what deaming meant, I might have been more responsive.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:41 PM on October 15, 2002

Dear Friends by David Deitcher is available in both hard cover and paperback. It's hot.

"Affectation" is my biased way of describing physical mannerisms that appear from my "gay but narrow" perspective to be of a more exaggerated emotional pitch than my own. Again, men OR women. I'm really just thinking with my dick here . . .
posted by divrsional at 5:53 PM on October 15, 2002

my usual unwelcome slice of life...

never! hugs all around, and a grope for Miguel! you'd have to know someone really really really well to say stuff like that tho....
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on October 15, 2002

This post is truly revolting. Cancel my subscription to this site.
posted by Postroad at 6:06 PM on October 15, 2002

During a lazy afternoon recently I watched a NFL Films documentary special on ESPN that focused its entire 30 minute program on the phenomenon of sports butt-slapping. It was an enlightening experience, as the theory and practice of slapping butts was explained as a signal to your teammate, "That was an excellent play, my fellow competitor athlete! Carry on good man!"

The highlight of the show was a slow-motion ocean wave jiggle of a particularly Sir-Mix-a-Lot booty owned by a large Football lineman after it had been disturbed by a slap, commentated and analyzed by a panel of experts ranging from former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theissman to current star Warren Sapp. The egregious butt and slow-motion film caused this segment to last a good three minutes while I was hypnotized by the oceans of ass I was experiencing.

The entire show made my day a lot cheerier.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:33 PM on October 15, 2002

so Stan qualifies as an ass man. Good to know.
posted by divrsional at 6:42 PM on October 15, 2002

(A) What they-all said re: hugging friends.

(B) These photos were taken back when photography was new. The conventions and styles that we find acceptable now weren't established back then. Getting a photograph was a special event, and it would be no surprise at all to me if the poses were created especially and uniquely for the camera, with no relation to pre-existing, acceptable societal norms.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:43 PM on October 15, 2002

Well, if it means anything, I'm gay and my straight-male friends and my gay-male friends all hug me hello and there's nothing sexual about it, just the transference of affection.

I must confess, on a different note, that when looking at those pictures on the website I kept thinking (despite myself): "How gay." Not in a derisive way, just in a---and perhaps this is the point---societally programmed way. Especially those guys sitting on the moon.
posted by adrober at 6:53 PM on October 15, 2002

WolfDaddy... good find. It's nice to see this kind of thing... guys together, but not necessarily naked, oiled, and going at it like mad dogs. Ooh, I gave myself an image. And after the ruckus I caused, I won't be linking to it.
posted by benjh at 6:57 PM on October 15, 2002

"... for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you." --

Partly I think the status of male relationships in the C19 are the result of homosexuality as a discrete legal category having not been "invented" yet. The dualities of straight and--as we'd say, gay, hadn't been drummed into people's heads yet, and men (or women) didn't feel that touching or spoken affection with the same sex violated some norm. Though to be sure they abided by other proprieties that we've abandoned. Partly I think the status of same-sex relationships were deeply influenced by the still fashionable early C19 (Anglo-American) cult of "sensibility" or sentimentality which privileged strong, dramatic emotions. (Brothers in Arms , btw, is another fascinating exhibit on Whitman, masculinity and the American Civil War.)

Why this changed in the 20th century is what I'd like to know. I'm suspect it has something to do with the congruity of the nuclear family with the industrial state, but who knows?

And I hug both my gay friends and my straight friends (well, some of them), but my dad, for example, still has this nifty way of turning anticipated hugs into fatherly pats on the back.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:14 PM on October 15, 2002

The Brothers in Arms site (great link! Thanks octobersurprise!) has some more in-depth analysis of some of the Dear Friends images. You can find that page here, and you will need Flash to go further with at least one image. Also extended descriptions on the page itself only work on mousing over the relevant picture. Small grr.
posted by WolfDaddy at 7:21 PM on October 15, 2002

MetaFilter: oceans of ass.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:35 PM on October 15, 2002

Surprised the exhibition didn't mention that most early photographic techniques (daguerotypes, tintypes) had VERY long exposure times. Photographers used special chairs with headrests to ensure that the subject would sit still for the minute or so needed to get the shot. I'd bet that at least some of the earliest photos are the result of the photographer needing to get two people in a photo to be mechanically supported so that they wouldn't blur the image.
posted by jonnyp at 2:11 AM on October 16, 2002

goethean, hell yeah.

While Moby's Area:Two was quite a flopp, Dieselboy came out after his set so I got a signature and a hug from him. Also got one from Mr. Joshua Davis when he gave a talk at my school last month.
</brag>

I just have a tendancy to hug people whom I respect a lot or admire.... and hot art chicks. ;)
posted by hobbes at 2:21 AM on October 16, 2002

Regarding the handshake/weapons comments: The handshake historically goes way back and the irony is it evolved from two men greeting and cupping each other's scrotums. It was both a sign of trust (as in I can do this without hurting you, i.e., you can trust me, I am friend) and also a sign of distrust (as in, how many swords you got in there?) Alice Walker writes about this in Possessing the Secret of Joy. Strange that it has evolved into the handshake, for many the only non-threatening form of male touching.

I've always said that sports were created so that men could touch each other with being stigmatized as gay. Sexuality is fluid, and most people are not 100% either. But most men will not admit to this.

I have a very good married friend who hugs me, will kiss me on the lips in greeting and parting, and will even talk about guys he thinks are hot. I think that is so cool. I'm sure he is more affectionate with me than his straight friends, but he also doesn't give a rat's behind what people think of him.
posted by archimago at 7:37 AM on October 16, 2002

...and cupping each other's scrotums...
love that! we should definitely all go back to doing that!

Also, via the trackback below, I found out about HugNation. Apparently every Wed at 6pm western time people are hugging whoever they're with or next to....hmmmm
posted by amberglow at 3:01 PM on October 16, 2002