Homosexuality during the Mexican-American War

[wing_of_grey]

Setting: 1847, a remote military outpost in the Sierra Nevadas

Comments

[mmebahorel]

You need to define your terms. "Questionably close" in your mind may not actually be questionable for the period. Additionally, "homosexual" has no meaning in this period, less because the term was not yet coined and more because sexual and social concepts were defined differently. There's going to be a focus on acts rather than intentions. One has to remember that at this point, men could still hug each other and comfort each other without anyone going "God, that's so gay

[syntinen_laulu]

I second all this. A parallel of sorts is perhaps the Royal Navy in Nelson's day; homosexual acts were punishable by death (in normal British law as well as the King's Regulations for the Navy), and there must have been a fair amount of it going on, but the number of court-martials for it was tiny. It's quite certain that most captains preferred not to lay charges against men caught in the act, either because of the scandal and general unpleasantness, or because however much they might have deplored homosexuality they didn't like to see men swing for it. A number of captains' journals and letters mention instances where the men concerned were simply dumped ashore a.s.a.p.

Check what was the legal penalty in your period? If it was still a hanging matter, that would greatly affect the authorities' attitude to any individual case.

simp

[fjm]

There is a book somewhere or other (I can't find it in Amazon) that talked a lot about homosexuality and Mormon missionaries in the nineteenth century. The basic argument was that while we cannot assume physical exchange, it was perfectly normal to share beds (beds were expensive) and to write letters that began "I cannot wait until we can share a bed again..."

Society before 1920 was much more homosocial and an awful lot short of sodomy would have been regarded as horsing around.

[mmebahorel]

THIS. There's also a book of photographs of men that attempts to deconstruct whether or not the subjects were in romantic relationships with each other, which I cannot seem to find at the moment.

I think the Mormon book must be this: http://books.google.com/books?id=UXVj398JvnsC

[inner_v0ice]

The book of male couple photographs I know is this one, but the pictures are presented without comment, no analysis like you mention. Perhaps this is it?

[mmebahorel]

I'm pretty sure the second one is it. The description looks right and the title is just vaguely familiar enough that together, it has to be it.

Thank you!

[fjm]

Thanks! Thats it!

[Usually I just have to reach to the book shelves, but they are all in storage while we try to move house. I feel like I have phantom library syndrome... you know, you reach out for a book and it isn't there....]

[syntinen_laulu]

Yes: it’s only in the last 100 years or so that having a bed to oneself has been considered normal, or even desirable. In the 18th century it was considered suspicious for a lady whose husband was away from home not to require her maid to share the bed with her in his absence - why would she forgo the warmth and company, people reasoned, unless she was expecting a lover to join her? In the Middle Ages, and certainly into the Tudor period, it was a great honour and public mark of favour for the king to invite a guest or senior vassal to share his bed. (Misunderstanding of this custom is the main reason why some 20th-century writers have believed that Richard the Lionheart was gay, which he almost certainly was not.)

[fjm]

I think I remember reading Joan of Arc protesting that she wasn't allowed a maid to share her bed, and that this was [apols for modern summary] cruel and unusual punishment.