How Historians Study Gay History | Sir Noel Malcolm: The History of Homosexuality (1/4)

[@chiron14pl]

Very interesting narrative on same-sex behavior in this period. Kinsey’s conceptual breakthrough to rate behaviors (0-6), then expanded by Klein to rate additional dimensions such as romantic involvement, socialization, and ultimately identiy make it easier to apply to the past. Also, there are more types of sexual acts between males; fellatio, mutual masturbation. Those behaviors are easier to do quickly with little additional requirements, so much actual behavior may not have been recorded.

[@1HorseOpenSlay]

What is going on with these comments!? Exceptionally intelligent and unbiased. Really impressive

[@JohnFrederickFurth]

It's fascinating that many of the "older/ancient" attitudes about homosexuality were pretty prevalent - at least from my experience - in the countries Malcolm mentions until the gay movement took off in the 80's.

[@JohnFrederickFurth]

In 1977, just turned 18, my best friend and I spent the summer before college in Europe. We were preyed upon, approached and in my case seduced by a series of mostly married or engaged men. Being straight, my friend was indignant and pissed off at the advances. I was gay and had a great time.

[@ItsCoreyLynxxYall]

It was the late 60s

[@robertwirth8459]

This is evidence based from historical records often court or inquisition papers. It’s a fascinating study and shines a light on these records and their interpretation. In those societies for men sex with attractive adolescent boys was more acceptable than with women - ie outside of marriage. Women were kept away from men, protected and owned. Many more people would not have been tried or reported on - so no records exist of the majority of homosexuals. Cohabitation existed - eg. wealthy people employed partners in their households, lavender marriages, friendships etc - avoiding societal scrutiny and condemnation and thus unrecorded.

[@MrSteventodd]

17:03 the fact that writers had to speak to the extreme taboo of two older men loving each other speaks to the fact that it happened. You don’t polemicize things that aren’t happening. Major ball dropped. Homosexual love was not purely pederastic and it’s ridiculous to say otherwise

[@MrSteventodd]

19:23 Now he’s speaking about the impossible to know the desires of the younger males. At no point during this lecture will he ever cite a primary source that could ever demonstrate the desires of every youth. This is blatant stereotyping. Sure the youth did it for attention or money, but many did it for sexual gratification and/or affection and intimacy. Very disappointing analysis so far

[@MrSteventodd]

38:32 again. If older male:male sex/attraction didn’t happen, and if homosexuality was purely a pederastic interaction, THEN WHY WOULD THE OTTOMANS NEED A WORD TO DESCRIBE OLDER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH OTHER OLDER MEN????

[@MrSteventodd]

44:58 and then the lecture contradicts itself. Yes, gay love existed.

[@MrSteventodd]

My conclusion on lecture one: a heaping dose of stereotyping & speculation diminishes the quality of this lecture. Then I’d like to refer to uniformitarianism; processes we witness in the present likely occurred in the past. Fully adult men, like today, have had long term, ongoing, intimate consensual relationships with other fully adult men. Lecture one needs to be retitled A History of Pederasty. The research completely ignores primary sources that demonstrate man on man pair bonding

[@joejohnson6327]

@@MrSteventodd This gay man's conclusion is that you're paranoid.

[@dreznik]

I read Prof. Malcolm's book on the topic. Absolute tour-the-force.

[@eswyatt]

Richard Posner made the distinction in his book, Sex and Reason, between the "opportunistic homosexual" and "true homosexual." The former involved the use of males as a substitute for females, whereas the latter involved men who were attracted to men. Wherever women are sequestered, you'll find adult men using boys as a substitute. Hence why they look down on men who sleep with adult men. I can't for the life of me understand why historians can't understand this.

[@Xyrzus7485]

It was a way of not having children before artificial contraceptives were introduced. This was commonly done in eastern societies particularly; as already stated by others in this talk stream, by adult men with teenage or younger boys instead of men's own wives. Of course, they felt guilty and sinful about doing it ; after the act they beat the boy or murdered him.

[@dangregory4368]

Is it possible that mutually agreeable sex between adult men was mostly kept secret and therefore did not often result in a criminal case?

[@MrSteventodd]

🎯

[@Akkadi_]

Sure, it's possible and likely probably, but that doesn't take away from the reality, as attested by the presentation, that intergenerational sex between men and boys was very prevalent. Both are probably; it's just that intergenerational stuff was more documented.

[@theunintelligentlydesigned4931]

There is a little bit of an error here. The exceptions might have only been exceptions because they were more secretive about it. That is, you might only have discovered a few cases because those are the few cases that failed to keep it secret. I'm sure that there were people throughout history that only felt desire for adult men that were equal in age but we'll never know about many of them because they did not talk about it.

[@MatthewHall-c9k]

@@theunintelligentlydesigned4931incorrectness!

[@theunintelligentlydesigned4931]

@@MatthewHall-c9k How do you know? Did your sky daddy tell you in a dream?

[@jamesmiller4184]

Very fine! Subscribed.

[@Sten111]

The modern dilemma of Gay History study....how to disentangle and put aside its own bias, misconceptions and presumptions.

[@MrSteventodd]

yup but this exists for all fields of historical scholarship.

[@1aikane]

So much of the history of gay people is not known. Social oppression made so much secret. Sad

[@davidwright8432]

Extremely interesting. One thing it demonstrates is the stark historical ignorance of most modern day (US at least) psychology. The distinction between condemnation of an act - that of sodomy - and attribution of it to some kind of 'human essence' - homosexuality, in present terminology - is very important.

[@greentombdive]

Thanks and ‘following’ .. However, sadly, a series of three ads in the initial 1:40 ?!

[@graceemilydoug]

Great lecture!

[@glenntimmermans8277]

A strong contender for the title of the cleverest man in England. Jonathan Sumption his only serious rival.

[@Drew-b9p]

How fascinating. You are not only privy to the brain power of more than 35 million men but are competent to judge who is to be considered supreme.

[@minui8758]

@@Drew-b9pwe can observe what the various academics in public life say and draw conclusions about which is cleverest… it’s a perfectly legitimate exercise

[@WorldPeace-AdamNeira]

If you think Noel Malcolm is the "cleverest man in England" you really should get out more. He is so far from being a fair dinkum Prophet or even a Polymath it is not funny. See what Maimonides wrote about the subject of Prophecy and where it ranks in the Hierarchy of Wisdom in "Guide for the Perplexed". Al-Ghazali أَبُو حَامِد مُحَمَّد بْن مُحَمَّد ٱلطُّوسِيّ ٱلْغَزَّالِيّ also discusses "Ladders of Intelligence" in human beings. Neither Oxford or Cambridge can be called "Houses of Wisdom" Bayt al-Ḥikmah now.

[@haircole]

At Yale John Boswel wrote about this subject,

[@barrymoore4470]

The lecturer here indeed mentions Boswell, but emphasizes that many of his conclusions conflict with more recent research and analysis by others.

[@gabriellebernard198]

Please understand that we have written history maybe 5000 yrs back. Thats how we understand the past. Most people through history existed without documentation. Learning about the past is very myopic and frustration

[@MrSteventodd]

When I teach history this will be my mantra. Each new unit will start with this as a quote until my students are sick of hearing it. THANKS A TON!

[@tomripleyro]

where are the other 3 parts?

[@bigthangz5489]

im also wondering the same !

[@pharosfoundation]

The rest of the parts are scheduled for release at 6:30 PM on the 16th, 21st, and 23rd of February.

[@MG-vf8xm]

so how do all these tie into today's male homosexuality? retrieving statistics from the past is one thing... but what does it mean?

[@hafismi]

One minute in and he's already lost me by saying he'll stick to the "sodomite" descriptor. I'm sorry, but how is someone so old unaware of the derogatory nature of this term? We use "homosexual" for all other animal species where that behaviour has been observed, but we need to use "sodomites" for people? Really? Cringe. He's clearly conflating homosexuality with gay identity, which is indeed a modern invention.

[@jimboy419]

Interesting presentation. I'm sure the usual 4 or 5 percent of people were born with same-sex attraction then as now. Maybe they went and lived somewhere else or the magistrates were just dealing with a certain kind of public behavior with teenagers. Not all of the men ended up married as you state.

[@barrymoore4470]

In Roman Catholic cultures, the priesthood presented a means by which men who were not interested in women (such men possibly but not necessarily homosexual in orientation) to exist in society without arousing suspicion. The lecturer here mentions at one point a friar who had been on intimate terms with his male friend for many years.

[@WorldPeace-AdamNeira]

There is no "gay gene". See my detailed counsel elsewhere in this comment section.

[@jamesmiller4184]

". . . 4 or 5 percent of people were born with . . ."? BIG NEWS FLASH: A-L-L male homo-sapiens sapiens are born with the dual amorous/sexual capability (ambisexual). We males have been working really hard to prove it over eons, mostly in-camera, thank goodness. The psycho-clinical term 'polymorphous-sexual' nicely pigeonholes it. For the 'big low-down' regarding the way overly complicated subject (MADE-so to purpose-nefarious way too often), THIS following is 'a must' -- "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies," by author James Neill. And excerpt from A-M-A-Z-O-N follows (at which site the vital tome might be seen and purchased) ". . , the author arrives at some provocative conclusions: that a homosexual or bisexual phase is a normal part of sexual development, that same-sex relations play an important balancing role in regulating human reproduction, . . ." Don't miss it.

[@alexandreskvirsky]

Adult couples common since ancient Greece, as seen in Diogenes Laertius

[@andersjefsenrasmussen3003]

Sounds very much like the Tea-boys in Afghanistan and Pakistan to day.

[@DJJonPattrsn22]

Actually, a number of notable & significant distinctions/differences come to mind. First being that the boys you're referring to tend to average 4-8 years YOUNGER-many being prepubescent.

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

Unfortunately this gentleman's lecture is about the prevalence of pedophilia, not homosexuality. Homosexuality as we recognize it today, ( 2 adult men in a consensual relationship) wasn't recorded because it was consensual and almost exclusively private. He's describing primarily heterosexual men engaging in a readily available sexual outlet. Conflating the two has left the modern gay man with the stigma of pedophilia. Are there gay pedophiles? Of course, but statically in no higher numbers than heterosexuals. His conclusions give us virtually zero insight into homosexuality in antiquity.

[@DJJonPattrsn22]

It seems that you've: 1. missed the most basic point! (he is DISTINGUISHING and NOT equating nor conflating sexual acts vs sexual identity!) 2. invented and assigned your own purpose for the lecture (to provide "insight into homosexuality in antiquity" … which, not surprisingly, is unmet) 3. misunderstood or failed to culturally contextualize a number of his findings and observations (while he repeatedly reminds us of the great cultural, conceptual and ideological changes & differences; you instead attempt to explain/understand his findings using the context of your own paradigm based in 21st century social, legal and cultural norms- of course it doesn't offer any helpful insight! He specifically warns against doing that)

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

@DJJonPattrsn22 No, I don't believe I missed the point at all. I'm not referring to " identity" at all, ( very much a 21st century phenomenon). What I take issue with is using referring to sexual acts between men and boys as " homosexuality" or " homosexual behavior ". He's describing pedophilia which some argue is an orientation of its own. I guess that first, there needs to be an agreed upon definition of "homosexuality ", or more pointedly " homosexual behavior ". I define it as consensual relations between adult men. Self identification is as separate issue. Maybe conflating wasn't the proper term. But he should be DISTINGUISHING between sex between consenting adults and adults and children. That's pedophilia, NOT homosexuality, whatever century you're referring to.

[@Akkadi_]

@@williamberven-ph5ig The definition you've given of homosexuality is silly. Homosexual pederasts are still homosexual, they just aren't "gay" in the modern sense. His talk is over homosexuality as it exists in the historical record in his area of expertise. Same-sex behavior is what he's covering. He *does* in fact discuss man-on-man relationships, but concludes that they were relatively rare, and that the predominating form of homosexuality in places like Italy was pederastic, and not adult-oriented. Homosexuality, by the way, is an attraction between people of the same sex. It's a feeling, not an action. Additionally, the lecturer is not only portraying opportunistic men who had sex with boys, but also adults who today would be considered homosexual pedophiles. It's a mixed bag.

[@BobSF94117]

Is Sir Malcolm gay? It sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like he doesn't have a clue.

[@MrSteventodd]

Read my mind!!!!!

[@davidthom7127]

Not a wonderful communicator and what he's communicating is of the same quality.

[@Johnconno]

They speak to each other and their parents.

[@jesussuarez713]

You people have no respect or any shame. To push such an obvious lie such as this only prooves that you are nothing but evil liars.

[@DJJonPattrsn22]

Please, state/specify which lie you are referring to. That part may not be obvious to others.

[@ashleyartus1193]

What a load of Malarkey

[@MatthewHall-c9k]

Now do the history of heterosexuality.

[@stirlingmoss9637]

That's mainstream ducky

[@bigthangz5489]

no need ..... everything is in plain sight. nothing is hidden. nothing has ever really had to be hidden about heterosexuality !

[@EdwardEngland-ig3gg]

Why??? All history is heterosexual. Written by heterosexuals about straight culture. As I was growing up in the 50s and 60s GLBTQIA didn't exist. Being gay was unmentionable...

[@MatthewHall-c9k]

No it's not. It's an idea of human sexuality. It requires as much explanation as any idea of human sexyskity.

[@barrymoore4470]

@@bigthangz5489 But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a history. Anything and everything that exists in time is subject to historical investigation and analysis.

[@forgetaboutit192]

wtf dude belongs in jail

[@MrSteventodd]

Only fascists put educators in jail

[@liedersanger1]

Not any more, thank goodness.

[@joejohnson6327]

Why? He's not saying it's okay to sexually abuse boys.

[@forgetaboutit192]

@@joejohnson6327 yes he is

[@stirlingmoss9637]

​@@joejohnson6327where's the abuse? Can abuse even be attributed to an act of quid pro quo? Abuse must be defined if it is to be considered as an aggravating factor.

[@Sotzume]

The idea that older men were not engaging in homosexual acts because criminal or court documents only deal with young men or teenage boys is so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant this silly lecture being taken seriously. The premise of this particular lecture is, in fact, homophobic as it implies that magically men in their twenties would had male lovers became heterosexual after their teenage paramours shaved!!! It's also sexist in that the lecturer assumes all teenage boys/young men who engaged in homosexual sex were "passive"...implying they were "more feminine" because of how they looked. As Tallulah Bankhead said, "To know such a thing, one would either have to have been in the bed or under it." This academicizing of gay men give nothing to history except the glaring prejudice of Sir Noel Malcom.

[@DJJonPattrsn22]

He is reporting on findings from research of historical documents-he acknowledges the limitations and warns against drawing conclusions based on our modern cultural contextual lens. Sharing/reporting statistics from research/findings is not homophobic nor sexist. Read the video description-one of the main points of this lecture is to identify the challenges of how to make sense of and contextualize historic findings that come from very different cultures & ideologies. Proper cultural contextualization seems to be beyond the scope of your understanding, capacity and imagination-that's what your rant seems to indicate.