One of the things which we find dififcult to understand is that formal and legal abhorrence of sexual behaviour in many societies would often go hand-in-hand with pragmatic acceptance, with the level of pragmatic acceptance declining during moral panics. It can still be seen in different areas today. There could be spaces where "forbidden" relationships and practices could be pursued freely, but covertly. Indeed, I think, for pre-Reformation Europe, I think there is still much more to be understood about how monastic life fitted into all this, although we will probably never construct a really satisfactory narrative at this point.
I've studied Inquisition action against "sodomy", and the ups and downs of moral panic and repression are really apparent.
This doesn't mean that they stopped persecuting it in some periods, and it doesn't diminish the horrors that we can see in the Inquisition records, but it definitely fluctuated according to public sentiment, royal directives, papal influence, and the resources of the court.
History is much more nuanced than what he usually think.
agree on the nuanced bit. Especially because the way societies defined sodomy seems to vary and change over time (and sometimes back).
“ The law not only defines who can be a “victim” of sexual assault, but also which specific sexual behaviors can be criminalized, even between consenting adults. The clearest examples of this are so-called anti-sodomy laws. Sodomy may be defined as any sexual act that does not involve a penis penetrating a vagina. It can include behaviors such as manual stimulation of a partner (e.g., mutual masturbation), oral sex, anal sex, and the use of sexual toys (e.g., vibrators, dildos). Anti-sodomy laws originally served to punish people for engaging in sexual behavior for the sake of pleasure only, that is, sexual behavior that does not lead to the potential conception of a child. More recently, sodomy laws were used to criminalize acts between consenting gay and lesbian people. As explained in Hough (2004, pp. 105–106):
References to sodomy can be traced back to biblical times. Historically, the definition of sodomy has often been confusing, but the courts have almost always defined sodomy as an act done by men. In fact, in the late twentieth century, courts and theorists found sodomy between women to be a legal impossibility. Today sodomy is defined as “oral or anal copulation between humans, especially those of the same sex.”
During periods of economic growth, people tend to be more live and let live. There's no need for scapegoats or to undermine others out of competition for limited resources. In poor economic times, tolerance falls, unless the times get so bad people have no choice but to band together regardless.
surely there's a gay, Irish version of West Side Story to be made involving two guys from different sides of town (Protestants/Catholics as opposed to Sharks/Jets, obvs)
Yeah I'm sure it was more hush hush before the hard right Unionists took over in the 50s and 60s. Their Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign etc.
There are interesting examples locally I can think of, of obviously queer people who lived not terrible lives. A person who we would call transgender nowadays used to be quite famous in my town. But I tried talking to an older person about it once, who remembered when they were alive, but quickly shot me down on any chat about modern understandings of this type of person. I think They would rather people like that were remembered as eccentrics or characters, not something they would consider 'woke'.
Yet this female presenting man was beloved my older women from his time, all of them long since dead, so I imagine the generations this article is referencing were in fact quite tolerant in their own way.
Yes they were; in the social milieu, they were both 'open secrets' and tolerated whilst thinly veiled and alluded to. The difference from today is the relation between public and private matters.
erinoco | 10 days ago
One of the things which we find dififcult to understand is that formal and legal abhorrence of sexual behaviour in many societies would often go hand-in-hand with pragmatic acceptance, with the level of pragmatic acceptance declining during moral panics. It can still be seen in different areas today. There could be spaces where "forbidden" relationships and practices could be pursued freely, but covertly. Indeed, I think, for pre-Reformation Europe, I think there is still much more to be understood about how monastic life fitted into all this, although we will probably never construct a really satisfactory narrative at this point.
fan_of_the_pikachu | 10 days ago
I've studied Inquisition action against "sodomy", and the ups and downs of moral panic and repression are really apparent.
This doesn't mean that they stopped persecuting it in some periods, and it doesn't diminish the horrors that we can see in the Inquisition records, but it definitely fluctuated according to public sentiment, royal directives, papal influence, and the resources of the court.
History is much more nuanced than what he usually think.
parabostonian | 10 days ago
agree on the nuanced bit. Especially because the way societies defined sodomy seems to vary and change over time (and sometimes back).
“ The law not only defines who can be a “victim” of sexual assault, but also which specific sexual behaviors can be criminalized, even between consenting adults. The clearest examples of this are so-called anti-sodomy laws. Sodomy may be defined as any sexual act that does not involve a penis penetrating a vagina. It can include behaviors such as manual stimulation of a partner (e.g., mutual masturbation), oral sex, anal sex, and the use of sexual toys (e.g., vibrators, dildos). Anti-sodomy laws originally served to punish people for engaging in sexual behavior for the sake of pleasure only, that is, sexual behavior that does not lead to the potential conception of a child. More recently, sodomy laws were used to criminalize acts between consenting gay and lesbian people. As explained in Hough (2004, pp. 105–106): References to sodomy can be traced back to biblical times. Historically, the definition of sodomy has often been confusing, but the courts have almost always defined sodomy as an act done by men. In fact, in the late twentieth century, courts and theorists found sodomy between women to be a legal impossibility. Today sodomy is defined as “oral or anal copulation between humans, especially those of the same sex.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/sodomy
espressocycle | 10 days ago
During periods of economic growth, people tend to be more live and let live. There's no need for scapegoats or to undermine others out of competition for limited resources. In poor economic times, tolerance falls, unless the times get so bad people have no choice but to band together regardless.
roastedoolong | 10 days ago
surely there's a gay, Irish version of West Side Story to be made involving two guys from different sides of town (Protestants/Catholics as opposed to Sharks/Jets, obvs)
Sock-Enough | 10 days ago
“When you’re a Prot, you’re a Prot all the way. From your first Thesis post to your last dying day.”
Responsible_Oil_5811 | 10 days ago
When you’re a Prot you can do what you can. Through your faith in the Lord you’re a family man.
brunckle | 10 days ago
Yeah I'm sure it was more hush hush before the hard right Unionists took over in the 50s and 60s. Their Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign etc.
There are interesting examples locally I can think of, of obviously queer people who lived not terrible lives. A person who we would call transgender nowadays used to be quite famous in my town. But I tried talking to an older person about it once, who remembered when they were alive, but quickly shot me down on any chat about modern understandings of this type of person. I think They would rather people like that were remembered as eccentrics or characters, not something they would consider 'woke'.
Yet this female presenting man was beloved my older women from his time, all of them long since dead, so I imagine the generations this article is referencing were in fact quite tolerant in their own way.
CyberpunkAesthetics | 10 days ago
Hypocritcal or not, such 'open secrets' are nothing at all new; they also extended to childlove as well ie. rumors about Lewis Carroll.
Adelaidey | 10 days ago
Not remotely comparable.
CyberpunkAesthetics | 10 days ago
Yes they were; in the social milieu, they were both 'open secrets' and tolerated whilst thinly veiled and alluded to. The difference from today is the relation between public and private matters.
Local_Function3313 | 10 days ago
>The difference from today is the relation between public and private matters.
I really don't know what you're trying to say.
Local_Function3313 | 10 days ago
There were no rumours about Lewis Carroll and children at the time, or about him being gay. Are you referring to another rumour?