Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yrcrazypa t1_j6b5yxl wrote

Reply to comment by Drag0nfly_Girl in Dickens' David Copperfield: Were men more affectionate with each other in the 18th century? by angelojann

In that they were murdered the second they peeked out in the open? Sure, how does that change anything? Are you suggesting that gay people should go back in the closet and disappear so that men can hold each others hands without being accused of being gay, because that's ridiculous.

Your entire argument hinges upon the need to force same-sex attracted people back into the closet, that's insane and you're insane for arguing that we should do that. It's truly troubling that we're still dealing with people obsessed with not being called gay, and that people like you are the main perpetrators for it by implying its a bad thing to be gay.

−3

Fox-and-Sons t1_j6bb440 wrote

>Your entire argument hinges upon the need to force same-sex attracted people back into the closet, that's insane and you're insane for arguing that we should do that

They're not arguing that. They're saying that the increasing visibility of and conceptualization of homosexuality meant that men felt the need to signal that they were not homosexual. That isn't saying that we should go back, it's just saying what likely happened. Even today you can see greater male physical affection in places where homosexuality is extremely taboo like in Saudi Arabia, where it's not rare for male friends to hold hands.

The solution to this is not that gay people should go back in the closet, it's that there should be a reduction in the stigma associated with being gay (though even without a stigma, most people don't want to be perceived as a sexuality they're not, so this might not work). Identifying why things likely shook out in a certain way is not an attack on the gay community.

3

Yrcrazypa t1_j6bfy65 wrote

> The solution to this is not that gay people should go back in the closet, it's that there should be a reduction in the stigma associated with being gay (though even without a stigma, most people don't want to be perceived as a sexuality they're not, so this might not work).

This is what all of my posts have been arguing, yes. That the taboo is what causes it. They were putting the blame on homosexuals, rather than putting the blame where it belongs on the people who still despise them. You wouldn't, or shouldn't, blame women in Saudi Arabia for getting beaten to death because they aren't wearing a burka so why should you blame gay people for why straight men can't hug each other?

−5

Fox-and-Sons t1_j6bovj0 wrote

>so why should you blame gay people for why straight men can't hug each other?

It's literally not blaming gay people.

1

Drag0nfly_Girl t1_j6b7n3z wrote

Jailed, usually, rather than murdered. Murder was illegal.

And you're attributing an argument to me that I haven't made, then arguing against it. At no point did I advocate any particular course of action. I simply presented a sociological reason for the decline of non-sexual same-sex physical affection that was omitted from the comment to which I was responding.

2

Yrcrazypa t1_j6bfau2 wrote

> It was already "demonized" in Dickens' time, so your argument holds no water.

What does this mean if not that they need to be demonized again? I know they were demonized back then, that much is obvious to everyone. You're victim blaming, plain and simple.

−3

BladeDoc t1_j6datpm wrote

This is the “is/ought” fallacy. Someone describing a situation does not mean that they think the situation is good. To be specific it is quite possible to think that the decline of non-sexual same-sex public intimacy was an unfortunate side effect of the otherwise beneficial rise of homosexual relationship acceptance.

Hopefully, if homosexual relationships are completely destigmatized this process will slowly reverse as people will not care if they are classified as being “gay“.

0