[ SECRET POST #3506 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3506 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Dollhouse]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[http://transgirlnextdoor.tumblr.com/]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #501.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The historian who wrote the book about Hamilton, which LMM read and inspired the musical, is pretty against the interpretation that Hamilton could have have homosexual relations/banter/whatever with Laurens.

Myself, I think some historians - especially old straight historians - love to go on about how it was a ~cultural difference~ and "homosocial" relations were a thing. Well, maybe, but homosexual relations were a thing, too. It's impossible to definitely ascribe any sexual identity on virtually any historical figure. But completely dismissing what reads of pretty blatant romantic and even homosexually charged language of these letters on the basis of "that was just what straight people did back then" is seriously dumb.

[crossy_woad]

Very interesting! This is well-thought through.

[fishnchips]

I just love the bigoted old historians who keep trying to retcon any possible gay stuff their fav might've done. I see this a lot with Ludwig II of Bavaria. And also the people who vehemently deny that thing with Alexander the Great and Hephaistion.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, Alexander the Great, and Emperor Hadrian, often get the "well durr homosocial we don't know" treatment. True, we don't know virtually anything about history 100%, but c'mon. Even if Alexander and Hephaistion weren't lovers, Alexander did have a favorite male concubine in Bagoas who he at very least kissed in front of a crowd after Bagoas danced for him.

I'm all for avoiding labeling historical people, because we don't know exactly, but at very least it's pretty likely that certain people had gay relationships.

(Not necessarily applying this to Hamilton, I just think some historians are very, very quick to deny suggestions of homosexuality)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, some people seem to believe homosexuality is an ~invention of the 20th century.

[arcadiaego]

Or the 21st, apparently.

[(Anonymous)]

I read something for a class once about homosexuality only dating to the 19th century, or something, but I think the author was thinking in terms of identifying as a homosexual person, not simply feeling sexual attraction entirely/primarily towards the same sex. It was a weird article that also tried to insist suicide and menopause were social constructs and telling me Japanese women don't go through menopause, and I'm thinking "The fuck they don't" and then realizing he probably meant they don't get hot flashes or whatever whereas I was defining "menopause" as "the end of estrus." I guess anything can be a social construct if you define it conveniently.

[arcadiaego]

Just bros being bros.