[ SECRET POST #3591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3591 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - 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)]

Well, when it comes to historical figures part of it is that the entire concept of gayness as we understand it today just didn't exist in the past. Like, people had sex with people of the same sex and fell in love with people of the same sex but they understood it in such different ways that it's hard to know what to do with that. Today, sexuality is a part of identity, but it wasn't even a hundred years ago, so do we call James Buchanan gay, or is that plastering a 21st century term onto his very real lived experiences?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but since straight is still considered default attempting to just sweep it under the rug and go "Modern definition, no good. Can't apply it." without making an effort to go the same lengths for "So they were straight?" "Oh GOD no! Again, modern definition! Don't even try!" seems kinda iffy.

[(Anonymous)]

Um, no?

The free-love-type idea you're talking about was very much frowned upon. If you were gay, or just not straight, you were as far in the closet as your could get to stay safe. It wasn't part of identity the way we think about it today because if you had "other" feelings, you were in danger, even potentially from someone with similar leanings. They used the "gay" to mean happy and light, yes, but there were other common terms in use at the time; sly, queer, and peculiar come to mind. It was Not a good thing.

It wasn't part of one's identity -- it was a death sentence, socially, financially, literally.

So we may be using a modern term, but we are not overshadowing the "real lived experiences" of anyone -- if anything, I might argue you are, trying to sugar coat it to say it wasn't part of identity the way we consider it now and therefore people were fine with it.

The history of queerness is wrought with strife and violence, and not at the hands of our peers but the hands of those who saw us and thought "evil," depraved, inhuman. It is always about someone trying to push excessively conservative ideals onto others, to mould the new and "other" to their shape of humanity through the most inhumane means.

And the reason we don't hear about it is because people didn't talk about because they would be killed out of hand.