>>40445820
This isnt checking out. Im not saying it isnt true or even likely. I just mean this seems to have that strong odor of lgbt revisionist wishful thinking replacing actual known data, like the claim Abe Lincoln being gay or other interpretations of male friendships being romantic ones based on the more casual acceptance of male intimacy when the haunting specter of homosexual accusations were fewer and nearly unspeakable themselves, even with their own euphemisms since labels and succinct terms were not in currency.

Likewise, as the modern concept of "gay" did not exist, there could be no contemporary agreement on what a homosexual relationship actually meant (some things never change, I guess) and, more often than not, reflect what would more precisely be considered bisexual behavior today, which was the practice of nearly all who would be called "gay" today.

I dont mind some speculation or historically skewed claims, but I have to be on guard for outright reductive revisionist claims, because people repeat these claims citing authoritative or arcane sources, reduce them and then perpetuate them as established facts.

This leads to distrust, as shown, of all same sex historical claims and ends up being little more than unfounded centuries old gossip.

That said, the idea that young, stressed men stop being opportunistic perverts when on a boat in the middle of the sea instead of in jails is absurd also. However being open about these moral frailties and emasculating lapses is a different claim.

If gaygen would like a keyword to look more into same sex arrangements of the era, I encourage you to look into the equally murky concept of "matelotages".

>durr why are people gay though
>every day for years
>Because-
>TOO MANY WURDZ!!