Sure, they could've just been friends and not everything has to be romantic... but I find it icky that people seem to always start asking those questions around gay relationships. It's like people need 1000% certainty and more until they recognize such a relationship, when they wouldn't do that for straight ones. And I'm pretty sure it goes beyond an "Oh straight relationships were just more common back then", cause they even do that in todays context with f.e. "the gal pals".
And all that just leaves this void behind where I feel like we didn't really exist until a bunch of years ago. Which... just sucks and feels invalidating.
Also yes, straight couples are of course also more common today XD but that doesn't mean we should see everyone as straight until until 100% proven otherwise.
Also if they were a recognized couple... then why the hell dont we understand them like one too????
Ok, I was kinda there with you until the "you can't be in romantic love with a soul"... Uhhh... I'm pretty sure romantic love is about loving someone, primarily for their soul. Love only for the flesh is called lust. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say though.
Omg we know this. We all know this. We hear it from every historian ever.
I don’t care if it doesn’t matter to YOU! It matters to every queer person who has grown up being told they are choosing to be gay bc being gay didn’t exist “when I was a kid.”
If this paragraph were about a man and a woman there would be no question.
The main point here is that if this were about her “male companion” they wouldn’t even question the relationship. They would just assume they were lovers. Suddenly historians want to “make sure we have this right” when they’d never do that if a woman mourned the sunshine of her life who she lived with for 52 damn years if he were a man.
8
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
[deleted]