Thank you Anton.The idea of homosexuality (a word, roughly 100 years old) is quite recent. Same-sex activities didn't define or identify a person. A man might prefer having sex and sexually intimate relationships with women but would not rule out a same-sex occasion.
The idea of someone exclusively preferring same-sex acts and relationshi…
Thank you Anton.The idea of homosexuality (a word, roughly 100 years old) is quite recent. Same-sex activities didn't define or identify a person. A man might prefer having sex and sexually intimate relationships with women but would not rule out a same-sex occasion.
The idea of someone exclusively preferring same-sex acts and relationships was regarded as rare and rather weird. Moral and legal constraints tended to mean that gay men were discreet about their preferences and, indeed, vary many were married to women and fathered children. Consequently, it was only "feminine" men that caught publoc attention (in fact, it might be better applied to gender expression or gender identity rather than sexual orientation as such).
It was thought by many that men who preferred sex with other men were much less than 1% of the population. Homosexual and heterosexual were seen as mutually exclusive categories. Yes, many men realised that occasional masturbation or blowjobs with close friends (even though less commonly anal sex) took place but it wasn't labelled as homosexual. We now have a return in some circles that brojobs, and friendly handjobs can be OK between bros and homies and doen't mean that the men are gay or homosexual. Kinsey and his colleagues described a c ontinuu, between exclusive heterosexeulity and exclusive homosexuality. They were no longer seen as watertight boxes. Published just after the WW2, in which many men were fightling and living closely with other men resulted in affection and intimate sexual needs being provided by friends and comrades in arms. the report became a psychological bombshell. People were confused between same-sex affection, sexual incidents and sexual orientation. Was the report saying that many men were sort-of gay?
I think you are right that women entering all-male areas in the 60s onwards had more social impact. I agree that younger men (no doubt some older men, too) seem to accept that occasional same-sex acts ("as long as you keep your socks on") doesn't make you gay if you are more attracted to women.
I come back to what I liked about Clints photo compilations. Any of us can love anybody and give and receive physical affection with anyone. This may include orgasmic activities for some people but doesn't define sexual preferences or orientations.
I hope that younger people are giving themselves "permission" to regard physical affection and sexual intimacy as part of our inbuilt social adhesive needs as human beings.
I am sorry if this seems to be me unnecessarily being a teacher. I am meaning to agree and reininforce your point of view.
Thank you Anton.The idea of homosexuality (a word, roughly 100 years old) is quite recent. Same-sex activities didn't define or identify a person. A man might prefer having sex and sexually intimate relationships with women but would not rule out a same-sex occasion.
The idea of someone exclusively preferring same-sex acts and relationships was regarded as rare and rather weird. Moral and legal constraints tended to mean that gay men were discreet about their preferences and, indeed, vary many were married to women and fathered children. Consequently, it was only "feminine" men that caught publoc attention (in fact, it might be better applied to gender expression or gender identity rather than sexual orientation as such).
It was thought by many that men who preferred sex with other men were much less than 1% of the population. Homosexual and heterosexual were seen as mutually exclusive categories. Yes, many men realised that occasional masturbation or blowjobs with close friends (even though less commonly anal sex) took place but it wasn't labelled as homosexual. We now have a return in some circles that brojobs, and friendly handjobs can be OK between bros and homies and doen't mean that the men are gay or homosexual. Kinsey and his colleagues described a c ontinuu, between exclusive heterosexeulity and exclusive homosexuality. They were no longer seen as watertight boxes. Published just after the WW2, in which many men were fightling and living closely with other men resulted in affection and intimate sexual needs being provided by friends and comrades in arms. the report became a psychological bombshell. People were confused between same-sex affection, sexual incidents and sexual orientation. Was the report saying that many men were sort-of gay?
I think you are right that women entering all-male areas in the 60s onwards had more social impact. I agree that younger men (no doubt some older men, too) seem to accept that occasional same-sex acts ("as long as you keep your socks on") doesn't make you gay if you are more attracted to women.
I come back to what I liked about Clints photo compilations. Any of us can love anybody and give and receive physical affection with anyone. This may include orgasmic activities for some people but doesn't define sexual preferences or orientations.
I hope that younger people are giving themselves "permission" to regard physical affection and sexual intimacy as part of our inbuilt social adhesive needs as human beings.
I am sorry if this seems to be me unnecessarily being a teacher. I am meaning to agree and reininforce your point of view.