I can understand the motivation, it just seems to take a whole lot of mental gymnastics to get to "Oscar Wilde was straight."
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).
Erm, well, thanks. I'm not sure I can make a great argument, though, and it may well be wishful thinking on my part. I haven't read up on him recently.
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
I have not heard of these cultures, but I am interested!
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."
Ha, yes. Which makes the whole field of queer history challenging, sigh. I guess I personally prefer to avoid the identity terms (as with "feminist," for example) when discussing historical personages, when I'm being precise. On the other hand, when I'm not being precise and formal, I throw around modern identity terms all the time, so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 10:33 pm (UTC)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).
Erm, well, thanks. I'm not sure I can make a great argument, though, and it may well be wishful thinking on my part. I haven't read up on him recently.
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
I have not heard of these cultures, but I am interested!
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."
Ha, yes. Which makes the whole field of queer history challenging, sigh. I guess I personally prefer to avoid the identity terms (as with "feminist," for example) when discussing historical personages, when I'm being precise. On the other hand, when I'm not being precise and formal, I throw around modern identity terms all the time, so.