3 ms·

I think the far-fetched part of Segdwick's argument is the claim that James's sexuality is an interpretative key to his work. That James was sexually interested

by foldr 1y ago

I think the far-fetched part of Segdwick's argument is the claim that James's sexuality is an interpretative key to his work. That James was sexually interested in other men to some extent is pretty obvious. That does not necessarily make him 'gay' or 'bisexual', as those are all anachronistic labels (as indeed would be 'straight'). But it's certainly an aspect of his character that his family wanted to hide after his death.

squigz 1y ago
> That does not necessarily make him 'gay' or 'bisexual', as those are anachronistic labels. What labels would work to describe his sexuality, do you think?
- foldr 1y ago
  I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify. He seems to have flirted with other men. Whether he had sex with them, or was primarily sexually interested in men, is something that we can probably only speculate about. I suppose that resisting the application of a modern label could be read as a kind of erasure of gay/bi people from history. That's why in an edit I added the qualification that it would be equally anachronistic to call him 'straight'.
  - squigz 1y ago
    I really don't think using such labels as descriptors of a historical figure's sexuality is "anachronistic" - particularly when they're not even that old. The concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality surely existed when James did. > I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify. Are they...? Labels are used by... everyone... straight or not. And I can assure you I wasn't the first one to apply certain labels to myself as a child...
    - foldr 1y ago
      I think the concept of a stable gender-based sexual preference that’s part of your personal identity is relatively recent. Of course people were aware that there were men who liked having sex with other men, but that’s not really the same thing. And yeah I mean people obviously use labels as part of homophobic abuse, but that’s not going to be helpful as part of an argument that such labels are useful or valuable. I don’t really see why it’s necessary to decide whether Henry James is straight bi or gay just because those are the major classifications in our present social context.
bell-cot 1y ago
+1 to "far-fetched" for claims that his sexuality is an interpretative key. I'm ambivalent on his actual sexual interest in men. Wikipedia concludes that direct evidence is nonexistent. "In private correspondence" doesn't somehow force the baring of his true soul. And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. Yes, obviously his family wanted to prevent scandal. But that'd be true whether or not the scandal had any basis in fact.
- foldr 1y ago
  The Wikipedia article doesn't conclude any such thing. It notes that he sent lots of sexually suggestive letters to his gay friends. It also argues, somewhat unconvincingly, that he didn't do this only with men — but that just shows that he may also have been sexually interested in women, not that he wasn't sexually interested in men. > And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. People obviously received the letters, and may have kept them whether James retained copies of them or not.
- squigz 1y ago
  Direct evidence would be, what, exactly? Nude paintings? > so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. Another explanation would be that he didn't consider it a character flaw.

by foldr 1y ago

squigz 1y ago

> That does not necessarily make him 'gay' or 'bisexual', as those are anachronistic labels. What labels would work to describe his sexuality, do you think?

foldr 1y ago
I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify. He seems to have flirted with other men. Whether he had sex with them, or was primarily sexually interested in men, is something that we can probably only speculate about. I suppose that resisting the application of a modern label could be read as a kind of erasure of gay/bi people from history. That's why in an edit I added the qualification that it would be equally anachronistic to call him 'straight'.
- squigz 1y ago
  I really don't think using such labels as descriptors of a historical figure's sexuality is "anachronistic" - particularly when they're not even that old. The concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality surely existed when James did. > I don't see the need for a label as those are primarily used by living people to self-identify. Are they...? Labels are used by... everyone... straight or not. And I can assure you I wasn't the first one to apply certain labels to myself as a child...
  - foldr 1y ago
    I think the concept of a stable gender-based sexual preference that’s part of your personal identity is relatively recent. Of course people were aware that there were men who liked having sex with other men, but that’s not really the same thing. And yeah I mean people obviously use labels as part of homophobic abuse, but that’s not going to be helpful as part of an argument that such labels are useful or valuable. I don’t really see why it’s necessary to decide whether Henry James is straight bi or gay just because those are the major classifications in our present social context.

bell-cot 1y ago

+1 to "far-fetched" for claims that his sexuality is an interpretative key. I'm ambivalent on his actual sexual interest in men. Wikipedia concludes that direct evidence is nonexistent. "In private correspondence" doesn't somehow force the baring of his true soul. And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. Yes, obviously his family wanted to prevent scandal. But that'd be true whether or not the scandal had any basis in fact.

foldr 1y ago
The Wikipedia article doesn't conclude any such thing. It notes that he sent lots of sexually suggestive letters to his gay friends. It also argues, somewhat unconvincingly, that he didn't do this only with men — but that just shows that he may also have been sexually interested in women, not that he wasn't sexually interested in men. > And the article notes his propensity to burn manuscripts and letters - so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. People obviously received the letters, and may have kept them whether James retained copies of them or not.
squigz 1y ago
Direct evidence would be, what, exactly? Nude paintings? > so his preserving so much evidence of an actual dire (by standards of the time) character flaw seem pretty dubious. Another explanation would be that he didn't consider it a character flaw.