That the idea of “big queen” George [Washington] amuses us—I giggled at Kramer’s phrase, and was upbraided—is itself a historical problem. However thin the proof he adduces, why should it seem silly or sacrilegious to investigate the matter? In any case, Kramer isn’t interested in proof, or facts, or the historian’s dainty calculus of context and social construction. He’s interested, ravenously, in the possibility, surely the likelihood, that at least some famous American men before 1968 had sex with other men.Well, I'm glad we got that out of the way.
www.printthis.clickability.? Give me clickability or give me death.)"This highly provocative, often startling reconsideration of 19th- and early 20th-century male-male sexual relationships begins with a detailed description of what Katz depicts as Abraham Lincoln's romantic, erotic relationship with Joshua Speed, the man with whom he shared a decades-long intimate friendship, as well as a bed for three years. While Speed himself wrote that "no two men were ever more intimate," Katz is not arguing that these two men were homosexual; Katz makes it clear that referring "to early nineteenth-century men's acts or desires as gay or straight, homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual" places "their behaviors and lusts within our sexual system, not theirs.On the topic of whether or not these men who were intimate with men would have considered themselves gay, Katz is a follower of Foucault:
...[Katz| finds these men engaged in deeply loving and erotic friendship with no specific labels of sexual orientation attached"
"In the 16th century, the focus was on regulating the sexuality of the married couple, ignoring other forms of sexual relations, but now [with enlightenment] other groups were identified: the sexuality of children, criminals, mentally ill and gays.posted by ts;dr at 3:23 PM on December 28, 2009 [8 favorites]
"The perverse" became a group, instead of an attribute. Sexuality became seen as the core of some peoples' identity. Homosexual relations had been seen as a sin that could be committed from time to time, but now a group of "homosexuals" emerged. Foucault writes: "The sodomite was a recidivist, but the homosexual is now a species."
"The homosexual of the 19th century became a person: a"past, a history and an adolescence, a personality, a life style; also a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mystical physiology. Nothing of his full personality escapes his sexuality."
Seeing gays as a group is now taken for granted, but before the 18th century the idea would never had occurred to ask the question whether homosexuality is a function of heredity or of upbringing. It was simply not seen as being a fundamental part of the person, but instead as an action, something s/he did."
"In Dodd’s day, a sensual possibility was realized only in strongly condemned acts of man- to- man “sodomy” or “mutual masturbation.” Separate and distinct from those carnalities, “love” and “friendship” inhabited another, lust- free world. Thus freed of lust, love and friendship were the two most common terms men employed to name and understand their intimacies with other men. It sometimes took a bit of mental maneuvering, however, to keep these intense attractions free of any conscious taint of fleshly desire..[…]posted by ts;dr at 4:08 PM on December 28, 2009 [2 favorites]
Two days later, still trying to understand his worries, Dodd thought that it may be „my ----- I dare not write it in full; or it may be that my thoughts run upon ----- as much as any other thing.“ He prayed: „O that I could for a time forget all these sources of care, both great and small.“ He even half wished for death before melodramatically banishing the thought: „Away fiend, tempt me not; Avaunt, ye blue devils …“ […]
Here, someone, probably Dodd or a protective friend or relative, has torn away the diary page, destroying a precious document of love’s history. But clearly, Dodd was struck by the similarity of his “affection” for men and for women. That similarity of feeling contradicted his society’s idea that man’s love for men was free of lust, man’s love for women potentially lustful. No homo/heterosexual distinction told Dodd that he was experiencing two essentially different kinds of erotic feelings. […]
"The intensity of Dodd’s feelings exceeded romantic friendship by including an erotic element, as Dodd himself apparently began to see. Like many men of his century, he was perplexed about what to call and how to understand his strong attraction to men as well as to women. Like Lincoln, Dodd floundered in a world with few affirmative words for his fervent response to other men. In the diary of Albert Dodd we see how men contended against the verbal void that had also left Lincoln and Speed at a loss for words to name their mutual feelings. Against such condemnatory terms as “mutual masturbation,” “onanism,” and “sodomy,” men in the nineteenth century struggled for a new, affirmative language of sexual love. They began to develop a counterpractice, attempting to rename, rethink, and publicly affirm men’s erotic desires for men, and, sometimes, their sexual acts with them. Through their oppositional search for words, they began, tentatively, to come to terms, literally and metaphorically."posted by ts;dr at 4:13 PM on December 28, 2009
...homosexual rites are practiced extensively by numerous Melanesian tribesmen in New Guinea and adjacent islands. Young boys must "accumulate" semen for several years, either by regularly receiving anal penetration, or by swallowing the ejaculations of older males they fellate. This ancient custom springs from a religious belief system that regards sperm as the essential conduit of masculine energy; puny boys, they believe, are only transformed into virile warriors if they ingest large quantities of sperm.Or should we use another term for this?
"If you boys don't drink semen, you won't grow big," a Sambian elder tells prepubescent initiates. "You should not be afraid of eating penises ... it is just like the milk of your mother's breast. You can ingest it all of the time and grow quickly. A boy must be ... inseminated... If [he] doesn't eat semen, he remains small and weak."
While it doesn't square fully with our social mores there's a fairly clear homosexual identity being expressed.
- Let the Fops of the Town upbraid
Us, for an unnatural Trade,
We value not Man nor Maid;- But among our own selves we'll be free,
But among, &c.- We'll kiss and we'll Sw[iv]e,
Behind we will drive,
And we will contrive- New Ways for Lechery,
New Ways, &c.- How sweet is the pleasant Sin?
With a Boy about Sixteen,
That has got no Hair on his Chin,- And a Countenance like a Rose,
And a Countenance, &c.- Here we will enjoy
The simpering Boy,
And with him we'll toy;- The Devil may take the Froes,
The Devil, &c.- Confusion on the Stews,
And those that Whores do chuse,
We'll praise the Turks and Jews,- Since they with us do agree,
Since they, &c.- They're not confin'd
To Water or Wind,
Before or behind,- But take all Liberty,
But take &c.- Achilles that Hero great,
Had Patroclus for a Mate;
Nay, Jove he would have a Lad,- The beautiful Ganymede,
The Beautiful &c.- Why should we then
Be daunted, when
Both Gods and Men- Approve the pleasant Deed,
Approve the &c.
Socrates: I was on my way from the Academy straight to the Lyceum, along the road outside the wall and close under the wall itself. When I came to the little gate near the spring of Panops, I happened to meet there Hippothales, son of Hieronymus, Ctesippus of Paeania, and with them other youths, standing together as a group. And Hippothales, seeing me approaching, said, “Socrates, where are you on your way to and from?”If I may be permitted to comment on this passage:
“From the Academy,” I said. “I'm on my way straight to the Lyceum.”
“Come here then,” he said, “straight to us. Won't you stop in? It's worth it, you know.”
“Where do you mean?” I said. “And who are you all?”
“Here,” he said, showing me an enclosure set against the wall and with a door opened. “We ourselves,” he said, “pass our time here, along with a great many others—good-looking ones, too.”
“And what is this here? And what is your pastime?”
“It's a palaestra [a sort of small gymnasium for wrestling training],” he said, “built recently. And for the most part we pass our time with speeches, which we would be pleased to share with you.”
“That's a fine thing to do,” I said. “And who teaches here?”
“Your companion,” he said, “and praiser—Miccus.”
“By Zeus,” I said, “the man is not an inferior one, but a capable sophist.”
“Do you wish to follow us, then,” he said, “so that you may see those who are there?”
“I would be pleased to hear, first, what terms I'm to enter on and who the good-looking one is.”
“Each of us,” he said, “has his own opinions about who he is, Socrates.”
“But who is he in your opinion, Hippothales? Tell me that.”
At this question he blushed. And I said, “Hippothales, son of Hieronymus, you no longer have to say whether you love anyone or not. For I know not only that you love, but also that you are far along the way in love already. I am inferior and useless in other things, but this has somehow been given to me from a god—to be able quickly to recognize both a lover and a beloved.”
On hearing this, he blushed still more. And then Ctesippus said, “How refined that you blush, Hippothales, and shrink from telling Socrates his name! And yet if he spends even a short time with you, he'll be tormented by hearing you speak so frequently. Our ears, at any rate, Socrates, he has deafened and has filled them full of Lysis. Indeed, if he drinks a little, it's easy for us to suppose—even when we wake up from sleep—that we hear the name Lysis. And the descriptions he goes through when he's talking, though they're dreadful, are not quite so dreadful as when he tries to flood us with his poems and prose writings. And what's more dreadful than this is that he also sings about his favorite, in an astounding voice, which we have to endure hearing. Yet now, when questioned by you, he blushes.”
“Lysis is quite young,” I said, “as it seems. I gather this because I didn't recognize his name when I heard it.”
“That's because they don't often say his name,” he said, “but he's still called by his father's, because his father is so widely recognized. For I know well that you're far from ignorant of the boy's looks' indeed, he's capable of being recognized just from that alone.”
“Let it be said,” I said, “whose [son] he is.”
“He's the son of Democrates of Aexone,” he said, “his eldest.”
“Well, Hippothales,” I said, “how noble and dashing in every way is this love which you have discovered! But come now and display for me too the things you display for these fellows, so I may know whether you understand what a lover needs to say about his favorite to him or to others.”
“Do you attach any weight, Socrates,” he said, “to what this fellow has been saying?”
“Do you deny,” I said, “even loving the one he speaks of?”
“No, I don't,” he said. “But I do deny making poems about my favorite or writing prose.”
“He's not healthy,” said Ctesippus. “He's raving and he's mad."
And am I not right in asserting that there are two goddesses? The elder one, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite - she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione - her we call common; and the Love who is her fellow-worker is rightly named common, as the other love is called heavenly. [...]Later, Plato has Aristophanes tell a well-known story: human beings used to have two heads, four arms, four legs, two sets of sex organs; but they offended the gods, and Zeus used his thunderbolt to cleave them all in two [see also].
The Love who is the offspring of the common Aphrodite is essentially common, and has no discrimination, being such as the meaner sort of men feel, and is apt to be of women as well as of youths, and is of the body rather than of the soul [...] The goddess who is his mother is far younger than the other, and she was born of the union of the male and female, and partakes of both.
But the offspring of the heavenly Aphrodite is derived from a mother in whose birth the female has no part, - she is from the male only; this is that love which is of youths, and the goddess being older, there is nothing of wantonness in her. Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male, and delight in him who is the more valiant and intelligent nature; any one may recognise the pure enthusiasts in the very character of their attachments. For they love not boys, but intelligent beings whose reason is beginning to be developed, much about the time at which their beards begin to grow. And in choosing young men to be their companions, they mean to be faithful to them, and pass their whole life in company with them...
Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children, - if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him.Aristophanes was, in life, a mocker of philosophers (especially Socrates) and enthusiastic teller of buggery jokes; it's doubtful as to whether Plato intends him to be a philosophically sound voice. However, I've emboldened the phrases which seem to refer to the idea of categories of sexuality, which might indicate a classical precedent for the "homosexual" label. In any case, Plato's writings would certainly have been available to Lincoln in a variety of translations.
And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other's sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover's intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side, by side and to say to them, "What do you people want of one another?" they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: "Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two - I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?" - there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love.
« Older The Annotated Weekender.... | What would happen if aid organ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:18 AM on December 28, 2009