9 Insights
  1. AMEN! I've been the victim of trolls, and one serious nasty one who has publicly tried to destroy my reputation. They're just horrible people! What makes them be like this? Incroyables gay? Were Marvelleuises (spelling's wrong, sorry) lesbians then? The idiocy is amusing. I think you rebutted quite well!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed--if you're going to post something, sign your name to it. If you can't own it, you shouldn't post it.

    You can always respond to the post by saying "If I had clothes that fab, I'd be pretty darn happy, too!"

    I will say--there is eighteenth-century slang (like the term "molly") that indicates a concept of "sexual/gender behavoir outside the norm"--so I wouldn't know that I agree that the concept of gay didn't exist--but that it existed in a different way than we perceive it now. Heck, now men are afraid to hug each other or share a hotel room, and it's a little racy for a woman to grab a friend's hand. How things change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A Duch- I thought the same thing about the Marveleuises (your spelling is good enough for me! :)). Like, really? Plus, incroyables seem more of a political/fashion movement. It had it's basis in politics and their fashions reflected that. Further proof on Anons ignorant comment.

    Rowenna- That's where it gets tricky. Marie Antoinette was accused/rumored of lesbianism behavior, but no one would say she was homosexual. Her (rumored-and i think obvious propaganda) actions were lesbian, but her, as a person, was not A lesbian. Also, alternative genders does not necessarily denote gay/straight/bi, even today. Eddie Izzard is a fine example. He's a heterosexual male, who likes to wear makeup and women's clothing...also a wickedly funny comedian. So, slang terms like molly acknowledge alternative behaviors and maybe genders but the overall concept of identifying someone as an overall homosexual/heterosexual did not exist (this is just an easily researched fact). Honestly, I think that's why there are so many issues today with society struggling with the human rights campaign. A portion of the population was just fully divided into a separate group barely a hundred years ago. It's a new concept, along with the idea that one does not have to get married and procreate to be a contributing member of society, or avoid being a financial burden on the family. It's all quite complicated and intricate and interesting. The history of sexualities is strongly tied into social and cultural history and simply cannot be identified A, B, or C. It would be poor scholarly behavior and a disservice on the study of history. :)

    Can you tell that History of American Sexualities was one of my favorite classes in University? I'm going to go dig my books out now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very well spoken and I couldn't agree with you more. I think it is so sad how homophobia in this nation has drastically changed the way the sexes interact, as Rowena so well stated. I even read an article that claimed Abraham Lincoln had homosexual tendencies because he shared a bed with multiple different men while staying in various inns across the country. No where did they say anything about multiple same sex strangers sharing beds in inns was commonplace. Many inns even had limits as to the number of people that could share a bed, such as no more than 4 people to a bed. Anyway, I'm jumping down rabbit holes :-) I think you wrote a wonderful answer!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Abby--Thanks for saying what I meant, only better :) I think you hit the nail on the head that the choices exist today, whereas they didn't 200 years ago. Not getting married just wasn't much of an option--that would have been the "unusual" thing, not any amount of affection/closeness with someone of the same sex. There was "different" behavoir (always is), but one couldn't lay claim to a lifestyle the way we can today.

    Lauren--I think I read a similar article, that also discussed Lincoln writing emotional letters to a gentleman acquantaince. What's odd about that? I thought...oh, right. Modern America :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Abby, you rock! There is always someone who wants to take the J out of Joy. Thanks for taking on the troll and setting him or her straight. Cheers and happy holidays.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Going off on a tangent, I love the concept of 'troll' as in the Discworld, detritus and Ruby etc, who are silicone based life forms that can't think in the heat because it slows down their processing. My sister calls me a troll because I come alive in winter! Nothing to do with horrible snide anon spoil sports online. They are BAAD trolls!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I dislike trolls as much as the next person, but I have to disagree that homosexuality didn't "exist" for that period of time in history. Bed-sharing, as I understand it (and I am no expert, I'm citing a history channel special here) was often a practice of keeping warm or taking advantage of the limited quantity of beds, which at times were a luxury to travelers. Gay men in the 18th century weren't called "gay," but there were names for people committing sodomy, like sodomites, or "Mollys" Not to mention its presence in The Bible.

    And look, trolls: I can disagree and put a name to it. Man up or get off the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Red: You present an interesting point (though we don't agree that sodomy = homosexual, which is cool). I want to discuss this topic further, but as of right now my resources are across the ocean. I will have to wait until this spring to really get into the topic. Then I will go into more depth of the topic, because this post was merely just grazing the subject and bringing up the point that the word "homosexual" was created in 1893, what that means from a historical point of view, and also just giving a troll hell. :)

    ReplyDelete