Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alaskawolfjoe t1_j694heo wrote

Reply to comment by Drag0nfly_Girl in Dickens' David Copperfield: Were men more affectionate with each other in the 18th century? by angelojann

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.

5

Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j694lpx wrote

In Dickens' time? Yes, there absolutely was.

17

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

16

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.

8

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.

10

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.?

1

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.

1

ahkna t1_j6g959o wrote

Please, I am begging homophobes to READ BOOKS.

2