Just to throw this out there, there's nothing to the proposition that Da Vinci was gay. There's a handful of comments in his personal writings regarding sexuali

Just to throw this out there, there's nothing to the proposition that Da Vinci was gay. There's a handful of comments in his personal writings regarding sexuality, and they're humorous or dry, with a sense of disdain for sex. Unsurprisingly, Freud is responsible for some of the first suggestions of homosexuality, extrapolating from Da Vinci's writings in ways that aren't founded. Everything was phallic for Freud. There was a single contemporary anonymous accusation of sodomy, but such accusations were like shitposting, and Da Vinci was prominent in public, and close to people that drew harassment. The available evidence would suggest that he was celibate with an ascetic view towards sex, but even that conclusion is shaky at best. If he was gay, then it was obviously private or suppressed, but so would any heterosexual relationships have been. Projecting sexuality into his character is an interesting thought experiment, but there's not enough to really tell. Without a direct communication by an individual, or some form of historical evidence, the sexuality talk amounts to gossip, in my opinion. Da Vinci deserves more respect than that. The single solid conclusion you can derive from all of the evidence is that he kept his sexuality extremely private. To be clear, I speak from a heart of no judgment or discrimination over sexuality, understanding the persecution and vile nonsense accompanying the catholic culture of Italy at the time. I simply think that speculation detracts from the genius of what he did leave for history. It could be that I'm mistaken, but it seems tawdry and a bit self serving when assumptions like this are made, but I'm willing to entertain opposing views. My opinion is that privacy should be respected, even that of the long dead.