5 ms·

> How do you reconcile the fact that gay sex was a criminal offense with the claim that it wasn't considered abnormal? Just because something is illegal doesn'

by jxf 10y ago

> How do you reconcile the fact that gay sex was a criminal offense with the claim that it wasn't considered abnormal? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people consider it abnormal. (I agree with you that it feels historically revisionist, but I don't agree with your argument.) For instance, smoking marijuana isn't considered "abnormal" by many folks. And yet it is a serious federal criminal offense in the US, punishable by significant jail time.

dpark 10y ago
That's a good point but there is lots of evidence indicating the prevalence and acceptance of marijuana in spite of its illegality. Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s? Again, this just feels like historical revisionism. As if gay male sex was totally acceptable until a ~50 year period starting in 1950. Meanwhile this whole article is about a family of gay people who (at least the males) couldn't or didn't engage in this supposedly accepted behavior.
- rsynnott 10y ago
  > Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s? To be clear, the article's not saying that male homosexuality was largely considered normal. It's saying that having sex with men was not considered abnormal, which is a bit different. I think this is probably a bit of an oversimplification, but certainly, men who had sex with men would have been less inclined to think of themselves as different at the time than now.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I have trouble buying that claim. In a world where gay sex happens but isn't acknowledged, I don't see how people engaging in gay sex would consider it "normal". As if it became "abnormal" only when we started labeling it consistently as homosexuality. Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? I can buy that men who had sex with men wouldn't consider themselves gay (or bisexual or whatever) because that wasn't really a recognized thing. That doesn't mean that the gay sex itself would have been considered "normal" even by the people engaged in it.
    - wolfgang42 10y ago
      > Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill: > Like other lovers, they invented pet names for each other. Clementine was “Cat”, or “Kat”, Winston was “Pug”, then “Amber Pug”, then “Pig”. Drawings of these animals decorated the margins of their letters to each other, and at dinner parties Winston would reach across the table, squeeze her hand, and murmur “Dear Cat”. [...] > These were not one-offs, taken out of context. Due to Churchill’s odd schedule and frequent travels, he and his beloved Kat didn’t see much of each other, and even while living in the same house they wrote each other frequent letters. Practically all of them are full of love—and they’re equally full of what we today would recognize in a heartbeat as typical anthropomorphic on-line role-play. http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-and-fur/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-...
      - foldr 10y ago
        You can't really be comparing pet names based on animals to furry sex?
        wolfgang42 10y ago
        I glossed over this in the parent, but how exactly are you defining "furry sex"?
        foldr 10y ago
        People having sex while dressed in big furry animal suits.
        wolfgang42 10y ago
        That's not nearly as common as you might think--among other things, it's a good way to ruin a several thousand dollar fursuit. (The best analogy I've heard is "Yes, there are furries who have sex in fursuits, but probably not more than people who have sex in space suits."[1]) The furry fandom is much less inhibited than general society--members tend to be willing to discuss sexual topics in a way that most people aren't. (This probably also accounts for the higher incidence of homosexuality[2], since it's not felt to be something that needs to be hidden.) However, the vast majority of furry-related sexual expression (as opposed to two people who happen to be furries having otherwise non-furry sexual relations) comes in the form of various types of media--published stories and images, but also private roleplay. In this regard, pet names based on animals are absolutely a part of "furry sex", certainly more so than dressing in animal suits during the act. 1: http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-the-furry-fandom/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-... 2: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; poorly-formatted PDF at https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3. "...they are less likely to be heterosexual compared to other males in the study."
- tathougies 10y ago
  The most obvious example would be the acceptance of homosexual acts in societies where the lgbt identity is or was not common. The most obvious example is the Roman Empire where same sex acts were considered something men did but the idea of gay marriage would be ridiculous, since marriage was about producing heirs.
  - dpark 10y ago
    The Roman Empire collapsed centuries ago. I'm talking specifically about the claim that gay sex was considered normal before the 1950s, so let's say 1900-1949 in Britain. Where is the evidence that in 1940 a guy could engage in gay sex and consider it normal and what the hell happened between then and 1952 when Turing was chemically castrated for engaging in gay sex?
rsynnott 10y ago
For that matter, adulterous heterosexual sex, and in some cases even premarital sex, was strictly speaking illegal in many jurisdictions in the same timeframe (amazingly, pre-marital sex is still theoretically illegal in a few states in the US, though the laws are likely unenforceable), and no-one thought of that as abnormal either.

by jxf 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

That's a good point but there is lots of evidence indicating the prevalence and acceptance of marijuana in spite of its illegality. Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s? Again, this just feels like historical revisionism. As if gay male sex was totally acceptable until a ~50 year period starting in 1950. Meanwhile this whole article is about a family of gay people who (at least the males) couldn't or didn't engage in this supposedly accepted behavior.

rsynnott 10y ago
> Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s? To be clear, the article's not saying that male homosexuality was largely considered normal. It's saying that having sex with men was not considered abnormal, which is a bit different. I think this is probably a bit of an oversimplification, but certainly, men who had sex with men would have been less inclined to think of themselves as different at the time than now.
- dpark 10y ago
  I have trouble buying that claim. In a world where gay sex happens but isn't acknowledged, I don't see how people engaging in gay sex would consider it "normal". As if it became "abnormal" only when we started labeling it consistently as homosexuality. Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? I can buy that men who had sex with men wouldn't consider themselves gay (or bisexual or whatever) because that wasn't really a recognized thing. That doesn't mean that the gay sex itself would have been considered "normal" even by the people engaged in it.
  - wolfgang42 10y ago
    > Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill: > Like other lovers, they invented pet names for each other. Clementine was “Cat”, or “Kat”, Winston was “Pug”, then “Amber Pug”, then “Pig”. Drawings of these animals decorated the margins of their letters to each other, and at dinner parties Winston would reach across the table, squeeze her hand, and murmur “Dear Cat”. [...] > These were not one-offs, taken out of context. Due to Churchill’s odd schedule and frequent travels, he and his beloved Kat didn’t see much of each other, and even while living in the same house they wrote each other frequent letters. Practically all of them are full of love—and they’re equally full of what we today would recognize in a heartbeat as typical anthropomorphic on-line role-play. http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-and-fur/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-...
    - foldr 10y ago
      You can't really be comparing pet names based on animals to furry sex?
      - wolfgang42 10y ago
        I glossed over this in the parent, but how exactly are you defining "furry sex"?
        foldr 10y ago
        People having sex while dressed in big furry animal suits.
        wolfgang42 10y ago
        That's not nearly as common as you might think--among other things, it's a good way to ruin a several thousand dollar fursuit. (The best analogy I've heard is "Yes, there are furries who have sex in fursuits, but probably not more than people who have sex in space suits."[1]) The furry fandom is much less inhibited than general society--members tend to be willing to discuss sexual topics in a way that most people aren't. (This probably also accounts for the higher incidence of homosexuality[2], since it's not felt to be something that needs to be hidden.) However, the vast majority of furry-related sexual expression (as opposed to two people who happen to be furries having otherwise non-furry sexual relations) comes in the form of various types of media--published stories and images, but also private roleplay. In this regard, pet names based on animals are absolutely a part of "furry sex", certainly more so than dressing in animal suits during the act. 1: http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-the-furry-fandom/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-... 2: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; poorly-formatted PDF at https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3. "...they are less likely to be heterosexual compared to other males in the study."
tathougies 10y ago
The most obvious example would be the acceptance of homosexual acts in societies where the lgbt identity is or was not common. The most obvious example is the Roman Empire where same sex acts were considered something men did but the idea of gay marriage would be ridiculous, since marriage was about producing heirs.
- dpark 10y ago
  The Roman Empire collapsed centuries ago. I'm talking specifically about the claim that gay sex was considered normal before the 1950s, so let's say 1900-1949 in Britain. Where is the evidence that in 1940 a guy could engage in gay sex and consider it normal and what the hell happened between then and 1952 when Turing was chemically castrated for engaging in gay sex?

rsynnott 10y ago

For that matter, adulterous heterosexual sex, and in some cases even premarital sex, was strictly speaking illegal in many jurisdictions in the same timeframe (amazingly, pre-marital sex is still theoretically illegal in a few states in the US, though the laws are likely unenforceable), and no-one thought of that as abnormal either.