>>3977493
>It is possible for medieval writers to say - in public documents - that a king loved his courter vehemently, embraced him with the flames of intimate love, kissed him, slept with him, shared the same clothes, and ate from the same dish; it is possible for a cleric/courtier to say that he longs to kiss his archbishop-friend and to sink into his embraces, that he licks his "viscera," bathes his chest with his tears, and longs to fuse their two souls into one - and none of these formulations was received as an indication of an illicit erotic attachment... "Homosexual," "homoerotic," even "male friendship," are colored by the erotic. Even when the erotic is unstated the terms still operate in the same force field. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's term "homosocial" is useful. It sets sexuality to one side, eliminates its automatic inclusion, while holding its readiness. The discourse of male-male love displays on its surface sexuality vanquished and banished. Sexual desire and sexual intercourse can infiltrate secretly, but they do not govern it form their position of hiding...

I really do recommend this book for those interested in the history of male-male affection, especially for straight men who deeply care about male camaraderie and boys being boys.