[ SECRET POST #3070 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3070 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #439.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

... what 21st century concepts are we talking about?

[(Anonymous)]

The idea that an author would toss in a heterosexual marriage specifically to avoid accusations of teh gayz. I don't think that was a thing back in the 19th century.

[(Anonymous)]

actually I think you'll find that there were, in fact, gay people in the 19th century

(there is maybe an extent to which your comment is true, but it is much less than you seem to think)

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, obviously there were gay people in the 19th century. There have always been gay people. Where in my comment did I deny this fact? (Answer: I didn't.)

[(Anonymous)]

yah I know (and I probably should have made that point clearer but effort)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't even understand what point you were trying to make.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but that's not what they're saying. They're saying there wasn't as much of the whole "no homo!" thing back then. Two men being close and living together didn't immediately scream "gay" to people, so you wouldn't need to throw in a romance just to prove they're not gay.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it isn't *much* less. Readers of fiction, and the general public as a whole, were much less aware of gay people and the idea that two men sharing rooms = would be read as gay is a very modern one.

I do resent this "let's imply anyone daring to suggest the past was different from today must secretly be a homophobe" crap.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't say, and I didn't mean to imply, that they were a homophobe.

It really was a disagreement about historical interpretation, which I completely failed at getting across, and then gave up on.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes there were gay people, but they weren't out and about and probably got terrorized by the non-gays. So it's doubtful that they added a marriage in a book from over two centuries ago to dispel gay rumors.

[(Anonymous)]

TWO CENTURIES AGO

[(Anonymous)]

You mean Sherlock Holmes isn't Regency?