![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Pseudo Medieval Setting
-OR-
Mishalak snarks about off the shelf fantasy kingdoms.
Yes I know about the Rough Guide to Fairyland. I keep on meaning to read it and perhaps I'm duplicating some effort here. But I've had a number of conversations about fantasy and what is realistic for fantasy. First of all anything is realistic for fantasy because anything is possible. Except sometimes I sit here saying to myself, "Wait a second, unless there is stuff going on that I don't see this doesn't make any sense."
One of the first things is the standard SCA medieval setting. Now I like this SCA, and I do like learning about the Middle Ages and recreating aspects of it without the nastiness of the setting. But the fact is that it wasn't just because men sucked (though they were literally forbidden to suck) that women, gays, and so on were oppressed. And so I often roll my eyes a bit when I see openly gay men and women living equal lives when otherwise the setting is obviously trying to evoke Europe sometime from A.D. 700 to 1500.
I know that there have been historical times and places where homosexuals were not persecuted, or at least not very much. It is certainly conceivable that the religion that the equivalent of Christianity in the pseudo medieval setting, there's nothing particularly required that homosexuality would be a sin. However the homosexuals would not be gay in the same sense that they are in the modern western world. The subculture that we have with its various stereotypes, in jokes, gay neighborhoods, and so on are a product of these times. It happened because openly homosexual individuals were very strongly persecuted. That produced an underground culture that eventually came out into the public as the influence of religion over the culture started to wane a bit and because the gays were inspired by the actions of blacks.
Because the modern sense of being gay, rather than just sometimes having sex with the same sex, is so linked to modern history I have a hard time figuring out a way to have a gay historical character. It is like having a science fiction fandom in medieval times. Unless there is a gate open to the past for the SCA members I really doubt it would happen.
The historical reason of the persecution of homosexuality was a tribe trying to expand and increase. The Israelites needed lots of children, because otherwise they could not hold their land and have enough people to fight in wars. Many, many children used to die before a better understanding of hygiene and slightly better medical technology. So the religion of the tribe had rules intended to cause the birth of as many babies as possible. Obviously if a guy is having sex with a guy there won't be children of that relationship. Since Christianity came from Judaism the old rule got carried over with the help of a healthy dose of bias in the culture it went into.
Next Time, Why Being A Woman Used to Suck
Mishalak snarks about off the shelf fantasy kingdoms.
Yes I know about the Rough Guide to Fairyland. I keep on meaning to read it and perhaps I'm duplicating some effort here. But I've had a number of conversations about fantasy and what is realistic for fantasy. First of all anything is realistic for fantasy because anything is possible. Except sometimes I sit here saying to myself, "Wait a second, unless there is stuff going on that I don't see this doesn't make any sense."
One of the first things is the standard SCA medieval setting. Now I like this SCA, and I do like learning about the Middle Ages and recreating aspects of it without the nastiness of the setting. But the fact is that it wasn't just because men sucked (though they were literally forbidden to suck) that women, gays, and so on were oppressed. And so I often roll my eyes a bit when I see openly gay men and women living equal lives when otherwise the setting is obviously trying to evoke Europe sometime from A.D. 700 to 1500.
I know that there have been historical times and places where homosexuals were not persecuted, or at least not very much. It is certainly conceivable that the religion that the equivalent of Christianity in the pseudo medieval setting, there's nothing particularly required that homosexuality would be a sin. However the homosexuals would not be gay in the same sense that they are in the modern western world. The subculture that we have with its various stereotypes, in jokes, gay neighborhoods, and so on are a product of these times. It happened because openly homosexual individuals were very strongly persecuted. That produced an underground culture that eventually came out into the public as the influence of religion over the culture started to wane a bit and because the gays were inspired by the actions of blacks.
Because the modern sense of being gay, rather than just sometimes having sex with the same sex, is so linked to modern history I have a hard time figuring out a way to have a gay historical character. It is like having a science fiction fandom in medieval times. Unless there is a gate open to the past for the SCA members I really doubt it would happen.
The historical reason of the persecution of homosexuality was a tribe trying to expand and increase. The Israelites needed lots of children, because otherwise they could not hold their land and have enough people to fight in wars. Many, many children used to die before a better understanding of hygiene and slightly better medical technology. So the religion of the tribe had rules intended to cause the birth of as many babies as possible. Obviously if a guy is having sex with a guy there won't be children of that relationship. Since Christianity came from Judaism the old rule got carried over with the help of a healthy dose of bias in the culture it went into.
Next Time, Why Being A Woman Used to Suck
Re: Actually...
Okay I'm gay, but it really annoys me when certain gay activists go around trying to claim everyone in history. I've looked at the evidence and for the most part it seems that there is no convincing evidence that these great minds were homosexuals.
I also hate the fact that they claim Lincoln and ignore Buchanan. I mean if we're going to claim the good on shaky (at best) evidence then we also have to take the very bad for whom there is much better evidence. (For anyone reading who doesn't know Buchanan is the US President right before Lincoln who all but tried to break up the Union. And he was a queer as $3. He supported slavery because his deceased lover, Senator Ruffus King of Alabama, supported it.)
Oh and the Amazons were mostly likely myths.
Re: Actually...
How about Aristotle and Plato? That's what I was attempting to allude to.
And, actually, I think the overcrowding explanation is b.s.
My father was a Phd scientist at NASA. He taught me a healthy disrespect for "science" (usually 90% theory and bravado.)
So what I'm saying is hold your own truth because no one else knows it.
(paraphrase: don't take any....b.s.)
Keep your mind alive and it will serve you well.
Re: Actually...
The thing is with Plato is that he idealized a very close sort of relationship, but not the sex. Even today we use the phrase "platonic love". He is, however, the foremost of the people for whom there is good evidence that they may have been homosexual.
Aristotle on the other hand disapproved of men who allowed themselves to be taken as women as I remember and specifically the common practice of older men having young boys as lovers. He was probably not a homosexual, though with any person in ancient history it is hard to say one way or another.
I wasn't saying you were a gay activist, just going off on my own rant. Unless we have a diary in which a person wrote intimate thoughts at length I think it very problematic to describe a historical person as homosexual or heterosexual, though obviously the best bet is them being heterosexual. It's just a thing with me. I don't like it when it seems like people are claiming an icon for their movement. People belong to themselves, not to nations or activists. Unless that person was an activist for that cause while alive it makes me roll my eyes.
Re: Actually...
I think that homosexuality is exactly as ok as heterosexuality or bisexuality. And I have friends in all groups.
There are some fabulous people in history who were homosexual and gave us a lot! Artistically, literally, as examples of love, you name it!
And I might as well be a gay activist. I believe that gay rights' time has come. More than come. Gay folk and the n______ of the world (a la Yoko Ono) and it IS NOT RIGHT. You love whome you love. There's no flaw in love. Not that *I've* found!
Hon, I am on your side. I don't know your life but I want you to thrive.