I would say they still are reluctant. Maybe less so. In modern conversatioms, there is a very subtle implication that acknowledging queerness is inappropriate unless very explicit - even then you will get comments like “they didn’t have the same understanding about orientation or gender identity”.
In otherwords, there is still a strong undercurrent that straightness should be the default, rather than just one of the options.
even then you will get comments like “they didn’t have the same understanding about orientation or gender identity”.
I mean, it IS true. If you asked someone from 1910 if they were queer, they wouldn’t understand you either, you’d have to launch into a very long explanation to cover the cultural baggage in that term, and how it doesn’t just mean “homosexual”.
And then, even if they just finished enjoying male-male intercourse with their partner live-in friend, they would vehemently deny any such thing and be heavily offended.
Honestly, historians are just cagey about anything that can be argued about. Typically they wan’t to use language that is either verifiable or culturally specific (e.g. pederasty). One lecturer I know also emphasised that direct equivalency can be frankly problematic (e.g. lots of examples of Roman “homosexuality” is older men and younger boys). At the end of the day we can’t speak to identity in most cases, and that identity will be culturally situated. We can talk about actions. Can’t say if Julius Caesar was bisexual, can say he probably had sex with both men and women. Does sound like tiptoeing around to people used to saying “gay” not “men who have sex with men”.
Straightness as defined in the modern day, not necessarily. For the first ~200 years or so of Roman Emperors, only ~4/18 would’ve been ‘straight’ as we would recognize it.
(Claudius, definitely; Vespasian, probably; Antoninus Pius, probably; Lucius Verus, possibly. You can add Marcus Aurelius if you want, but there’s some speculation on his inclinations, if somewhat fringe)
Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are all noted to have had male sexual favorites. Nero married men. Galba was noted, specifically, as liking older, ‘hard-bodied’ men. Otho took Nero’s castrated husband. Vitellius had male favorites. Titus was a party boy and total bicon. Domitian was noted to have a castrated male favorite. Nerva is suggested to have been gay. Trajan was overwhelmingly gay. Hadrian had the Senate deify his deceased boytoy. Commodus had male favorites.
I mean, unless one is thinking that the Emperors were drawn from some sort of Biologically Bisexual Elite™, it would probably be not dissimilar, in terms of attraction if not necessarily opportunity to sample all the boytoys one wishes, for random people.
I mean the elite often do act different to the common people and their behaviour was sometimes very scandalous, which is why it was so widely written about
Elite act differently from the common people generally for increased ability to act on their wishes. In a society where the elite is not a closed cultural caste, common people and elite generally share tastes, in broad terms, even if fashions and fads differ.
It’s an interesting idea that the people back then would’ve been different to people now on their sexual preference generally. If being gay, bi or straight is biological then something would probably have had to change
It’s one of those things where you have a mixture of biological and cultural factors at play. I always hear it best compared to taste - some people will never like fish sauce, no matter how many times or how many ways or how long they’ve tried it. You can raise some people on fish sauce, and they will just always hate it. Conversely, some people will always love fish sauce, no matter how reviled it is by their society.
But on the other hand, most people who are raised in a society which puts a high value on fish sauce will like or tolerate it. Our tastes are shaped by our environments and upbringing.
Sexuality, I imagine, is much the same. Some people will always be straight or gay, no matter how many alluring statues of naked men you put alongside your nice columns. But most people will probably find beautiful what their society finds beautiful - in societies which glorify male beauty (regardless of whether they formally approve of homosexuality), you’ll likely find more gay and bisexual men.
I would say they still are reluctant. Maybe less so. In modern conversatioms, there is a very subtle implication that acknowledging queerness is inappropriate unless very explicit - even then you will get comments like “they didn’t have the same understanding about orientation or gender identity”.
In otherwords, there is still a strong undercurrent that straightness should be the default, rather than just one of the options.
I mean, it IS true. If you asked someone from 1910 if they were queer, they wouldn’t understand you either, you’d have to launch into a very long explanation to cover the cultural baggage in that term, and how it doesn’t just mean “homosexual”.
And then, even if they just finished enjoying male-male intercourse with their
partnerlive-in friend, they would vehemently deny any such thing and be heavily offended.Honestly, historians are just cagey about anything that can be argued about. Typically they wan’t to use language that is either verifiable or culturally specific (e.g. pederasty). One lecturer I know also emphasised that direct equivalency can be frankly problematic (e.g. lots of examples of Roman “homosexuality” is older men and younger boys). At the end of the day we can’t speak to identity in most cases, and that identity will be culturally situated. We can talk about actions. Can’t say if Julius Caesar was bisexual, can say he probably had sex with both men and women. Does sound like tiptoeing around to people used to saying “gay” not “men who have sex with men”.
That kinda language is common among both cisgendered straight and LGBTQ+ researchers btw.
But isn’t straightness the most common, which is why it’s a good bet
Straightness as defined in the modern day, not necessarily. For the first ~200 years or so of Roman Emperors, only ~4/18 would’ve been ‘straight’ as we would recognize it.
(Claudius, definitely; Vespasian, probably; Antoninus Pius, probably; Lucius Verus, possibly. You can add Marcus Aurelius if you want, but there’s some speculation on his inclinations, if somewhat fringe)
Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are all noted to have had male sexual favorites. Nero married men. Galba was noted, specifically, as liking older, ‘hard-bodied’ men. Otho took Nero’s castrated husband. Vitellius had male favorites. Titus was a party boy and total bicon. Domitian was noted to have a castrated male favorite. Nerva is suggested to have been gay. Trajan was overwhelmingly gay. Hadrian had the Senate deify his deceased boytoy. Commodus had male favorites.
I was thinking more about when you consider random people
I mean, unless one is thinking that the Emperors were drawn from some sort of Biologically Bisexual Elite™, it would probably be not dissimilar, in terms of attraction if not necessarily opportunity to sample all the boytoys one wishes, for random people.
I mean the elite often do act different to the common people and their behaviour was sometimes very scandalous, which is why it was so widely written about
Elite act differently from the common people generally for increased ability to act on their wishes. In a society where the elite is not a closed cultural caste, common people and elite generally share tastes, in broad terms, even if fashions and fads differ.
It’s an interesting idea that the people back then would’ve been different to people now on their sexual preference generally. If being gay, bi or straight is biological then something would probably have had to change
It’s one of those things where you have a mixture of biological and cultural factors at play. I always hear it best compared to taste - some people will never like fish sauce, no matter how many times or how many ways or how long they’ve tried it. You can raise some people on fish sauce, and they will just always hate it. Conversely, some people will always love fish sauce, no matter how reviled it is by their society.
But on the other hand, most people who are raised in a society which puts a high value on fish sauce will like or tolerate it. Our tastes are shaped by our environments and upbringing.
Sexuality, I imagine, is much the same. Some people will always be straight or gay, no matter how many alluring statues of naked men you put alongside your nice columns. But most people will probably find beautiful what their society finds beautiful - in societies which glorify male beauty (regardless of whether they formally approve of homosexuality), you’ll likely find more gay and bisexual men.