Am-Chau, I'm not familiar with the book mentioned in your second link, but it sounds to me like it's essentially arguing against a straw man--nobody believes any more that ancient Greece was a "paradise for homosexuals" in any uncomplicated sense, still less that it was a sexually "liberal" society. If you're really interested in this stuff, I'd recommend that you (or anyone else) have a look at the title essay in David Halperin's book One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. Halperin is a classicist and a historian who has formulated most of the ideas I've been talking about above (with help from others of course, esp. Foucault)...he's also a very readable author and he was one of my PhD examiners!

the evidence for all this historical sexual stuff is never straightforward, which is why there are still lots of arguments about it.

Which keeps it interesting.

we--late 19th to early 21st century Westerners--are incredibly odd, with our strange ideas about everybody having a "sexual orientation" as some deep-seated part of their psychology, our belief that a person's sexual nature is determined not by what they like to do but by who they like to do it with, our idea of sex as a completely mutual activity between two (or more) equal subjects, and so on.

Yes. Where did the idea of "sexual orientation" come from, anyway? It seems like the Greeks didn't have it, and the Romans don't seem to have invented it; but it was around by what... the 18th century? 17th?

actually I find the Frodo/Sam friendship/relationship/call it what you will quite interesting, and the Frodo/Sam/Gollum scenes were the only ones I really liked in the second film.

I liked the whole thing, of course, but those were some of my favourites. Gollum was altogether impressive, and Frodo and Sam were done well.

If you're really interested in this stuff, I'd recommend that you (or anyone else) have a look at the title essay in David Halperin's book One Hundred Years of Homosexuality.

I'll add it to my reading list. Thanks!

Where did the idea of "sexual orientation" come from, anyway? It seems like the Greeks didn't have it, and the Romans don't seem to have invented it; but it was around by what... the 18th century? 17th?

Behold one of the great controversies! People seem to keep moving the date backwards, but last time I checked the predominant view is that some kind of notion of sexual orientation existed in 18th century popular consciousness (it can be seen for example in the existence of "molly houses" with what we would nowadays call an exclusively gay clientele and thus the beginnings of a separate culture; also in some writing of the time, most famously the diaries of a woman called Anne Lister), but it wasn't until the mid-19th century with the invention of "sexology" that it became codified and official-type people (doctors, psychologists etc.) started using it.

There was of course a notion long before this that someone might have a preference for people of the same sex (eg Edward II, James I, various other famous bods) but this wasn't generally seen as exclusive or fixed, something that made them a different kind of person; it was more a quasi-gastronomic matter of taste. (Although of course it was a taste that could get you sent to the gallows if you indulged it...)

IIRC, 'homosexual' -- the term, that is -- was coined in the 1880s.

Behold one of the great controversies!

Nothing like a good controversy.

There was of course a notion long before this that someone might have a preference for people of the same sex (eg Edward II, James I, various other famous bods) but this wasn't generally seen as exclusive or fixed, something that made them a different kind of person; it was more a quasi-gastronomic matter of taste.

So, to return to the start of this conversation, in Shakespeare's day there would have been an awareness that some people had homosexual preferences. In fact, if this page is correct, by the time of Shakespeare's later works (written, IIRC, in some cases specifically for James I), to condem such things openly wouldn't have been a great idea.

Hmm, I think I'd take that page with a large grain of salt. (Especially this: "Much to the embarrassment of the Vatican, the Catholic theologian Boswell has uncovered proof that, up until the fourteenth century, the church was routinely performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples"...that's actually been pretty conclusively discredited if I'm not mistaken.) I like the slogan "Thank a Homosexual for Your Bible" though!

(Please pardon a sidebar, here. My travelling companion Becky and I will be in London without plans on 13 May, awaiting a flight out on the 14th. Are there any London Buffistas who might like to meet up and spill a few libations? The profile address is working.)

t /sidebar

I feel all out of my depth in regards to the historical context of Shakespeare's work since I've avoided the subject like the plague (the thought of all that referencing for essays frightened me deeply). Though I do sometimes wonder whether it's even possible to do an English Major properly without having studied history.

In my opinion, R&J is more about "Look what a pair of nitwits they are!" (a la Anthony and Cleopatra) than about Twoooo Wuuuuuv.

Me and a friend of mine have a famous argument about Baz Luhrmann's R+J, where she thought he over-romanticised the story and I thought the 'look at the dumb-as-fuck teenagers' aspect was pretty blatant. Admittedly, though, most of my love for that movie comes from it's absolutely gorgeous score. I'm such a whore for a good score, which is another excuse I use for the whole Titanic fiasco (Celine Dion aside of course--I'm speaking strictly instrumentals).

To be annoyingly on topic - I just watched Buffy, the Willow-turns-into-Warren episode. Am I the only one who doesn't hate Kennedy? She's not a favourite character or anything, but I like her and Willow together, more than I ever liked Tara/Willow t /sacrilege Does she get rampantly irritating later in the season or something? Because the fandom hate-on just seems mystifying to me at the moment.

Edit: Hmm something seems to be eating the last paragraph of all my posts -- wait, it's not doing it anymore, so nevermind. And I just realised in the re-type that I missed something out, so--more editing. Someone pry my hands from the keyboard or I'll never stop.

Yes-- salt taken. Here's another interesting page. At the moment, I've only skimmed, but it raises some interesting points:

from the early seventeenth century, if not earlier, there was a widespread appreciation of the existence of a sort of transvestite and male prostitution subculture, and by the early nineteenth century it was often assumed in court cases that a married man was less likely to be guilty of buggery offences with another man.