Submitted by angelojann t3_10nigaq in books
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j690yao wrote
Reply to comment by DeusExLibrus in Dickens' David Copperfield: Were men more affectionate with each other in the 18th century? by angelojann
You're correct, but missing an important factor: there was no need to be "obsessed with not being perceived as gay" in Dickens' time, because homosexuality was closeted and considered unacceptable. Affection between men wasn't sexualized.
Fear of being perceived as gay only became an issue with the increasing visibility of homosexuality & its gradual social acceptance. Normal affection between boys was sexualized. The visibility of homosexuality had a direct negative effect on the expression of intimacy & affection between heterosexual men, just as it also put a damper on things like girlfriends holding hands while they walk (something I remember being normal & common when I was a kid but which gradually ceased when girls started getting called lesbians for doing so).
The sexualization of same-sex affection is what killed it.
Select-Ad7146 t1_j6a9mt9 wrote
It wasn't just affection between men or people of the same sex that wasn't sexualized. Affection in general is much more sexualized today. People showed a lot more affection towards children, for instance, without being viewed as pedophiles.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6aw17d wrote
Yes, very true.
IceHBerg t1_j6anauv wrote
This is a very good comment, and it is spot on in why it seems men of that time were more affectionate towards each other. We do have old photographs from the infancy of photography in which men are holding hands. Co-workers or friends. Just this simple gesture of holding hands means something different to us, but at that time it was merely a gesture of friendship. There was no question at the time, obviously they merely friends.
In my country around that time the practice of, when meeting people, kissing them once on each cheek regardless of gender was still well alive. There was nothing about it that was considered sexual, society just regarded it as the way people greeted each other.
maulsma t1_j6awwzn wrote
I went backpacking in Europe in the mid nineties, and I remember seeing lots of Italian men walking along holding hands, with their arms over shoulders and around waists. You don’t see that there as much now. So, I think it’s cultural: times change, people’s attitudes change, acceptable public behaviour changes. Even as recently as 1995 it was acceptable for grown male friends and family to hold hands and embrace in public in some places. I think I’d agree that it’s possibly fear of being labeled “gay” that has caused this to fall away. Kind of unfortunate. Even women aren’t demonstrative in public much in North America. Well, def more public affection in Mexico.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6ayhwh wrote
Yes, I miss the way it used to be. People need (non-sexual) affection & touch, it's so important. Everyone is worse off without it. I personally think the lack of it has a lot to do with the increasing incidence of mental health problems.
CrushedByTime t1_j6cgd1n wrote
This is how men are in India today. Though I guess it will begin to change soon as we ‘westernize.’
maulsma t1_j6fqw08 wrote
I don’t like seeing us drift apart, physically or otherwise, whether because of shame or peer pressure or whatever. People need physical contact. We shouldn’t feel bad about it. We shouldn’t be made to feel bad about it.
alaskawolfjoe t1_j694heo wrote
If you really get down to it, there was not concept of being gay. It was recognized that people did have sex with other people of the same gender, but there was no concept of a gay or straight sexual orientation.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j694lpx wrote
In Dickens' time? Yes, there absolutely was.
alaskawolfjoe t1_j6993h7 wrote
You may want to look at some books on the history of sexuality. The words homosexual and heterosexual did not even exist when David Copperfield was written. They came two decades later and even then were not understood the way we do today.
Attraction and sexual acts existed, but in general they were not seen as markers of an identity or orientation.
This article gives a simple background of the general understanding of the history of our understanding of sexual orientation.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j69fwdo wrote
Yes, I understand all that. My point wasn't that the words existed, or that it was considered an identity, because obviously it was not. But it was well understood that certain men and women were "queer" and preferred sexual intimacy with their own sex. It was considered a perversion.
alaskawolfjoe t1_j69p7of wrote
But it wasn’t understood as an orientation. It is like today we might describe someone as a thief or an teacher. We do that as a description of behavior. And we might find that behavior abhorrent or admirable.
But we don’t consider it as someone’s orientation. Or even part of their Personality. We are just describing behavior that any human being is capable of.
So just like today you can look at something in someone’s house and say I’d love to swipe that, without being considered part of the thief orientation, one could Be more sensual in one’s appreciation of another person of the same gender, without being considered part of a homosexual class.
You mention the word "queer" but the first recorded use to describe sexuality was not until 1894--and even there is it not clear that sexuality was was being referenced or if we are reading a later use of the word into an earlier reference.
Even "heterosexuality" was defined as an abnormal attraction to people of the opposite sex up until the 1920s. So what we think we are reading is not always what we are actually reading.
It gets more confusing in a Homosocial world, Where the majority of one’s emotional attachments are to people of the same gender.
AFriendofOrder t1_j6asxpu wrote
>Even "heterosexuality" was defined as an abnormal attraction to people of the opposite sex up until the 1920s
That's very interesting. Would you have any reccos for books on the history of terminology relating to sexuality, orientation, etc.?
alaskawolfjoe t1_j6cx7ui wrote
It has been awhile since I did research on this so it is a bit of a blur, but in the 90s and 00s a lot of books came out on gay history and gay people in the 19th century. They all will discuss this.
ahkna t1_j6g959o wrote
Please, I am begging homophobes to READ BOOKS.
Yrcrazypa t1_j69xbgh wrote
What killed it was the demonization of same-sex affection, not same-sex affection being made more visible. If two men being attracted to each other wasn't demonized then there wouldn't be any reason to be bothered if someone called you gay and you weren't.
It truly baffles me as to how this is even remotely controversial while the homophobe trying to justify homophobia based on how things were centuries ago is treated as rational.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6avzdo wrote
It was already "demonized" in Dickens' time, so your argument holds no water.
Yrcrazypa t1_j6b5yxl wrote
In that they were murdered the second they peeked out in the open? Sure, how does that change anything? Are you suggesting that gay people should go back in the closet and disappear so that men can hold each others hands without being accused of being gay, because that's ridiculous.
Your entire argument hinges upon the need to force same-sex attracted people back into the closet, that's insane and you're insane for arguing that we should do that. It's truly troubling that we're still dealing with people obsessed with not being called gay, and that people like you are the main perpetrators for it by implying its a bad thing to be gay.
Fox-and-Sons t1_j6bb440 wrote
>Your entire argument hinges upon the need to force same-sex attracted people back into the closet, that's insane and you're insane for arguing that we should do that
They're not arguing that. They're saying that the increasing visibility of and conceptualization of homosexuality meant that men felt the need to signal that they were not homosexual. That isn't saying that we should go back, it's just saying what likely happened. Even today you can see greater male physical affection in places where homosexuality is extremely taboo like in Saudi Arabia, where it's not rare for male friends to hold hands.
The solution to this is not that gay people should go back in the closet, it's that there should be a reduction in the stigma associated with being gay (though even without a stigma, most people don't want to be perceived as a sexuality they're not, so this might not work). Identifying why things likely shook out in a certain way is not an attack on the gay community.
Yrcrazypa t1_j6bfy65 wrote
> The solution to this is not that gay people should go back in the closet, it's that there should be a reduction in the stigma associated with being gay (though even without a stigma, most people don't want to be perceived as a sexuality they're not, so this might not work).
This is what all of my posts have been arguing, yes. That the taboo is what causes it. They were putting the blame on homosexuals, rather than putting the blame where it belongs on the people who still despise them. You wouldn't, or shouldn't, blame women in Saudi Arabia for getting beaten to death because they aren't wearing a burka so why should you blame gay people for why straight men can't hug each other?
Fox-and-Sons t1_j6bovj0 wrote
>so why should you blame gay people for why straight men can't hug each other?
It's literally not blaming gay people.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6b7n3z wrote
Jailed, usually, rather than murdered. Murder was illegal.
And you're attributing an argument to me that I haven't made, then arguing against it. At no point did I advocate any particular course of action. I simply presented a sociological reason for the decline of non-sexual same-sex physical affection that was omitted from the comment to which I was responding.
Yrcrazypa t1_j6bfau2 wrote
> It was already "demonized" in Dickens' time, so your argument holds no water.
What does this mean if not that they need to be demonized again? I know they were demonized back then, that much is obvious to everyone. You're victim blaming, plain and simple.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6bnjw8 wrote
No, you're putting thoughts & opinions in my head/mouth.
BladeDoc t1_j6datpm wrote
This is the “is/ought” fallacy. Someone describing a situation does not mean that they think the situation is good. To be specific it is quite possible to think that the decline of non-sexual same-sex public intimacy was an unfortunate side effect of the otherwise beneficial rise of homosexual relationship acceptance.
Hopefully, if homosexual relationships are completely destigmatized this process will slowly reverse as people will not care if they are classified as being “gay“.
nosleepforthedreamer t1_j6ddkq4 wrote
> the visibility of homosexuality had a direct negative effect on same-sex affection
No, the negativity came from the fear of being stigmatized. Maybe you didn’t mean to but I don’t like your placing blame on gay people for being themselves.
ahkna t1_j6aa9tl wrote
That's a very homophobic way of saying that heterosexual people feared being perceived in any way as gay and have spent decades sexualizing same-sex affection as a way to further stigmatize gay people.
Fox-and-Sons t1_j6bay9m wrote
It's not homophobic, it's presenting a reasonable theory of why things shook out the way that they did. It's not saying "and that's why gay people should go back in the closet." It's just saying that as the concept of homosexuality developed in public consciousness as possible thing that a person might be, that men made a point of signalling that they're not part of that group. There's no value judgment there.
Yrcrazypa t1_j6bh70f wrote
>Fear of being perceived as gay only became an issue with the increasing visibility of homosexuality & its gradual social acceptance. Normal affection between boys was sexualized. The visibility of homosexuality had a direct negative effect on the expression of intimacy & affection between heterosexual men, just as it also put a damper on things like girlfriends holding hands while they walk (something I remember being normal & common when I was a kid but which gradually ceased when girls started getting called lesbians for doing so).
>The sexualization of same-sex affection is what killed it.
This is literally a value judgement and saying that it's gay people's fault. That's homophobic, and if you look at their post history you'll see tons of bullshit "heteronormativity" being supported.
HettiePie t1_j6czacu wrote
No. They're blaming the "sexualization". That is an action by the person doing the sexualizing.
Read: If you sexualize teen girls for dressing in a certain way, we should not blame the girl; however, we should blame the person who sexualizes the child.
Also, this person is stating facts. History is what it is. The person stating the facts is not a homophobe for speaking the truth.
Seriously, people? Taking an excellent topic to spur intelligent intellectual conversation and using it as a chance to go all "social justice warrior"? What a drag.
ahkna t1_j6g90b0 wrote
This is r/books, so I'm begging you to READ A BOOK.
Just because you're comfortable being homophobic doesn't make it correct.
petereeflea t1_j6bsav0 wrote
Yes, but they didn't want to be seen as being part of that group, because it was culturally unacceptable. It was perceived as perverse. Which resulted in death, or jail, or being ostracized. If being gay was always accepted, and demonized, or treated as a perversion. Then men wouldn't have an issue with same-sex affection. Because being seen as gay wouldn't be a bad behaviour in society.
ahkna t1_j6g8vs5 wrote
Yes, it is homophobic.
The girl flat is blaming gay people for "sexualizing" girls holding hands. Did you even read it?
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6aw2by wrote
No.
ahkna t1_j6g90he wrote
I'm shocked that a girl saying lesbophobic and homophobic things denies being homophobic.
Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6g9ngn wrote
Please cite the statements that are lesbophobic & homophobic.
Disastrous_Use_7353 t1_j6awjus wrote
Try commas
Yrcrazypa t1_j6bhvtw wrote
It's absolute insanity how that take is being accepted just because it was written in a lot of words, isn't it? It shows that society still has a long way to go for even gay people to be fully accepted, rather than their current state of only being vaguely tolerated.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments