Defrauding: homoerotic religious imagery

[Soldier of the One]

Fundies, be warned! :lol:

Here is an interesting article plus images from homoerotic religious art from the Renaissance:

advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Art/The_Golden_Age_of_Denial_Gay_Bible_Porn/

It's always nice to challenge the heteronormative patriarchy 8-)

[Cran]

I'm all for overturning stereotypes where it is due, but I think this article is... bad.

There is nothing "homoerotic2 or "gay" about those paintings, they depict the male (and in paintings not shown also the female) body in great detail and with little clothing. Style of the time, nothing more, nothing less.

If thaat is already oh-so-sexual, the author of this article has, in my opinion, the same screwed approach to sexuality as the fundies we discuss.

[Soldier of the One]

I think there's a danger either way.

There's a danger with projecting our modern notions of (homo)eroticism on historical artefacts, to be sure. But there's also a danger assuming that such images were *not* meant to be sexually charged.

Homoeroticism is of all cultures and ages and I think it is precisely the lack of an articulate gay identity in Renaissance culture (or many other cultures) that allowed for homoerotic imagery to spill over into religious imagery. I am sure it was all very sublimated, and perhaps seems more explicit to us because we live in a more sexually explicit culture. But I do think it was there.

I think the dividing line between eros and religiosity was different/more permeable back then. There have been different studies (no, I can't cite any right now, sorry!) examining Medieval religious fervor, ascetism and sensuality - often because religious art was the only permitted avenue for such strong feelings.

So yes, I'd argue that the images *are* (homo)erotic (especially since Renaissance art was heavily influenced by the Classics) but that does not make it 'gay' in our identity-politics, contemporary understanding. The images clearly depict strong emotions and postures of (religious) ecstacy and passion.

Just my opinion though :)

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I'm all for overturning stereotypes where it is due, but I think this article is... bad.

There is nothing "homoerotic2 or "gay" about those paintings, they depict the male (and in paintings not shown also the female) body in great detail and with little clothing. Style of the time, nothing more, nothing less.

If thaat is already oh-so-sexual, the author of this article has, in my opinion, the same screwed approach to sexuality as the fundies we discuss.

Got to agree with this. ^

The only thing I even recall in the bible that approaches a gay relationship is David and Johnathan, more bisexual; we didn't even have a concept of sexual identity until this century.

[valsa]

Got to agree with this. ^

The only thing I even recall in the bible that approaches a gay relationship is David and Johnathan, more bisexual; we didn't even have a concept of sexual identity until this century.

Don't forget the ladies! Ruth and Naomi could give David and Johnathan a run for their money.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Don't forget the ladies! Ruth and Naomi could give David and Johnathan a run for their money.

very true! And there are also many, many paintings of the era that could be seen as girl-on-girl (maybe not wrongly) if we use this criteria.

And of course bestiality. Leda and the Swan?

[Soldier of the One]

Got to agree with this. ^

The only thing I even recall in the bible that approaches a gay relationship is David and Johnathan, more bisexual; we didn't even have a concept of sexual identity until this century.

I would actually argue that the David-Jonathan story is harder to argue for because words/texts are more difficult to interpret than images and because of the even larger historical and cultural gap between the Bible and our times. At least the Renaissance is closer to modernity as we understand it.

[Soldier of the One]

The only thing I even recall in the bible that approaches a gay relationship is David and Johnathan, more bisexual; we didn't even have a concept of sexual identity until this century.

My only argument is that I think we should be careful projecting either complete homoeroticism or no homoeroticism on these Renaissance images. I am not arguing there were 'gay relationships' in the Bible (although there might have been and that in and of itself is interesting). I think Naomi and Ruth make an even weaker case than Jonathan and David.

And yes, I agree, it is most likely that 'sexual identity' as we know today is a modern concept. But that doesn't mean there was no (deliberate) exploration of (homo)eroticism in (religious) art. It just means that it wasn't conceptualized in any explicit way.

Either way, the point of me linking the article is because it certainly challenges fundamentalist notions of sexuality and masculinity. And I thought it was fun :)

[Glass Cowcatcher]

My only argument is that I think we should be careful projecting either complete homoeroticism or no homoeroticism on these Renaissance images. I am not arguing there were 'gay relationships' in the Bible (although there might have been and that in and of itself is interesting). I think Naomi and Ruth make an even weaker case than Jonathan and David.

And yes, I agree, it is most likely that 'sexual identity' as we know today is a modern concept. But that doesn't mean there was no (deliberate) exploration of (homo)eroticism in (religious) art. It just means that it wasn't conceptualized in any explicit way.

Either way, the point of me linking the article is because it certainly challenges fundamentalist notions of sexuality and masculinity. And I thought it was fun :)

Neither am I. What I meant is that that was the closest example I could think of that looks like our idea of a homosexual relationship.

[Soldier of the One]

From a Biblical perspective? Yes. It's the only example.

I am not a historian but I do know that the Renaissance world was very much inspired by ancient Greece and Rome. I wonder if some of the artists saw some of the more... homoerotic Greek and Roman art (think vases, paintings etc - some illustrating very explicit sexual acts between men). I mean, this is entirely conjecture, but it is possible.

I'm also wondering whether many Renaissance artists weren't that pious but were merely commissioned to create religious art and so might have had their bit of fun with it.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

From a Biblical perspective? Yes. It's the only example.

I am not a historian but I do know that the Renaissance world was very much inspired by ancient Greece and Rome. I wonder if some of the artists saw some of the more... homoerotic Greek and Roman art (think vases, paintings etc - some illustrating very explicit sexual acts between men). I mean, this is entirely conjecture, but it is possible.

I can't see how they wouldn't have, if we can see it today.

I'm also wondering whether many Renaissance artists weren't that pious but were merely commissioned to create religious art and so might have had their bit of fun with it.

For sure. :lol:

[Anise]

I think the article goes wrong when the author tells people to view the pictures as if they have no previous knowledge of the stories, thus taking the pictures out of their context and their historical place. Of course things look different to our modern eyes.

[Soldier of the One]

Perhaps, although I think the article is also meant to be tongue-in-cheek, in its defense.

Things will always look different in our modern eyes but we still try to do history and analyze the data as it is presented us. What else can we do? Sure we should be cautious in arguing either way but I still think it's safe to say that the imagery is erotically charged.

[Anise]

Am I the only one who noticed that the Jesus, the saints, and David all had paler skin tones than the other characters? :?

[Soldier of the One]

No, hadn't noticed that.

Not sure whether that hints at a racial ideology or rather an esthetic ideal of being 'sheltered from the sun' and 'delicate'. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can pitch in?

[geniebelle6901]

I didn't see it as homoerotic. To me it looked like images I've seen on the History Channel shows about the fall of the Roman Empire or something like that.

[fluttershies]

Women were not allowed to pose nude for artists then; thus, most nudes in art were men. Obviously there were many Renaissance artists who were gay/bisexual/had same-gender attraction, but seeing as life back then was so very male-dominated and women weren't visible in daily life like they are now, art simply reflected how life was.

And pale skin was seen as a mark of refinement - racial superiority theories didn't exist. Racism still happened, obviously, but it wasn't based on pseudoscience or anything.

[Soldier of the One]

Women were not allowed to pose nude for artists then; thus, most nudes in art were men. Obviously there were many Renaissance artists who were gay/bisexual/had same-gender attraction, but seeing as life back then was so very male-dominated and women weren't visible in daily life like they are now, art simply reflected how life was.

And pale skin was seen as a mark of refinement - racial superiority theories didn't exist. Racism still happened, obviously, but it wasn't based on pseudoscience or anything.

This.

You still see similar situational homoeroticism in gender-segregated cultures to this day.

[fluttershies]

This.

You still see similar situational homoeroticism in gender-segregated cultures to this day.

Even sports teams have it - modern men (often in working-class, mildly to extremely homophobic cultures) who live mostly male lives (work with mostly men, socialise with mostly men, activities are male-dominated eg sports, drinking, hunting etc) have it, even.

[valsa]

Even sports teams have it - modern men (often in working-class, mildly to extremely homophobic cultures) who live mostly male lives (work with mostly men, socialise with mostly men, activities are male-dominated eg sports, drinking, hunting etc) have it, even.

I assure you, there is absolutely nothing homoerotic about manly, manly sports such as... say... wrestling. Wait...

Nevermind. Carry on, people. Nothing to see here.

[Soldier of the One]

I assure you, there is absolutely nothing homoerotic about manly, manly sports such as... say... wrestling. Wait...

Nevermind. Carry on, people. Nothing to see here.

:lol:

It's the pink shorts ;)

[CanadianHippie]

:lol:

It's the pink shorts ;)

In a couple hundred years, people will be discussing the mating rituals of the early 21st century men...

[Mela99]

If we got rid of stuff like this, the gay lifestyle would disappear in months! :roll:

I will almost miss Frothy's comments...

...almost.

...not really.

But yeah... I don't see much in this other than... well, stuff you'd find in a museum. Shrug.

[bananacat]

There's a lot of homoeroticism in the military too. I used to live near DC and my friends I would frequently meet large groups of men in the military at the bars and nightclubs in DC while they were visiting the city for training or other things. It's really amazing what they would do after a couple of drinks, especially in a large group of men with only two women and they all had to prove their manliness to us by sexually harassing each other. I mean like spanking each other with their pants pulled down. Stuff I would never consider doing with my female friends. But I see this as more an aspect of rape culture than of homoeroticism, because they were deciding their ranks by who could sexually overpower the others. Really creepy stuff though.

[geniebelle6901]

Unless I see what amounts to homosexuals making out or getting it on, I really don't think anything about so called homoerotic pictures or even statues.