If context helps, I went to high school in Tennessee and my English teacher was what I would generously call a bible-beater. On one of the first days of class when a student read her essay about her family, she said, "Your father's going to hell, but don't you go there, too." Right in front of everyone. It was basically the shape of things to come. She had the narrowest view of morality I've ever seen and that's saying something. So when we got to Oscar Wilde (who she liked, I think) the idea of him being really gay just could not be countenanced in her mind.
So that's how.
Most of history seems to be far more focused on acts than identity when it comes to sex, so all of this gets into strange territory pretty quickly (says she who has been reading far too much about Roman sexuality lately, and being very glad she isn't one).
I agree completely. Especially since acts do not necessarily equate to identity when it comes to queer folks in oppressive societies. For instance, many QUILTBAG folks end up in heterosexual relationships by necessity and even end up, say, having children but even as they're having what we'd call heterosexual sex, they're definitely not straight. Or, for instance, you may have lots of people in mediaeval times who are all about celibacy but it doesn't mean they'd identify as asexual.
My feelings on Richard I are that he might well have been bisexual, but that is not the most interesting thing about him. And I still like The Lion in Winter as a piece of historical fiction.
If I can ask (because I love talking history as I am an incurable history nerd), what makes you think this? Because I'd love to talk historical theories with someone who actually knows their stuff (btw, I've seen other posts you've made re: historical stuff and you have my respect).
And you're right, about what is and isn't QUILTBAG. I mean, there are situations of heterosexual people in same-sex marriages (for instance, cultures where very wealthy, powerful women are allowed to take wives who are legally considered the same as they would be if they'd married a man, but these women may not have any sexual or romantic feelings for each other because it's more an economic/domestic arrangement than anything).
Plus, defining someone's self for them even right now in 2011 is sketchy as best. I mean, if someone does have, say, sexual relationships with people of their same gender identity but they don't identify as queer, do we really have a business saying "no, you do this, this, and this, thus you are queer, because those are the Rules of QUILTBAGGERY."
And yeah, I agree re: Rome. I took a buttload of Roman history classes in my undergrad years. I understand exactly what you mean. Rome is fascinating to read, but I would never, ever want to have lived there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 10:21 pm (UTC)If context helps, I went to high school in Tennessee and my English teacher was what I would generously call a bible-beater. On one of the first days of class when a student read her essay about her family, she said, "Your father's going to hell, but don't you go there, too." Right in front of everyone. It was basically the shape of things to come. She had the narrowest view of morality I've ever seen and that's saying something. So when we got to Oscar Wilde (who she liked, I think) the idea of him being really gay just could not be countenanced in her mind.
So that's how.
Most of history seems to be far more focused on acts than identity when it comes to sex, so all of this gets into strange territory pretty quickly (says she who has been reading far too much about Roman sexuality lately, and being very glad she isn't one).
I agree completely. Especially since acts do not necessarily equate to identity when it comes to queer folks in oppressive societies. For instance, many QUILTBAG folks end up in heterosexual relationships by necessity and even end up, say, having children but even as they're having what we'd call heterosexual sex, they're definitely not straight. Or, for instance, you may have lots of people in mediaeval times who are all about celibacy but it doesn't mean they'd identify as asexual.
My feelings on Richard I are that he might well have been bisexual, but that is not the most interesting thing about him. And I still like The Lion in Winter as a piece of historical fiction.
If I can ask (because I love talking history as I am an incurable history nerd), what makes you think this? Because I'd love to talk historical theories with someone who actually knows their stuff (btw, I've seen other posts you've made re: historical stuff and you have my respect).
And you're right, about what is and isn't QUILTBAG. I mean, there are situations of heterosexual people in same-sex marriages (for instance, cultures where very wealthy, powerful women are allowed to take wives who are legally considered the same as they would be if they'd married a man, but these women may not have any sexual or romantic feelings for each other because it's more an economic/domestic arrangement than anything).
Plus, defining someone's self for them even right now in 2011 is sketchy as best. I mean, if someone does have, say, sexual relationships with people of their same gender identity but they don't identify as queer, do we really have a business saying "no, you do this, this, and this, thus you are queer, because those are the Rules of QUILTBAGGERY."
And yeah, I agree re: Rome. I took a buttload of Roman history classes in my undergrad years. I understand exactly what you mean. Rome is fascinating to read, but I would never, ever want to have lived there.