the sodomites

Literally just all the sexual things Alexander Hamilton sent to John Laurens


“I love you.”

This one is pretty self explanatory. Men were much more intimate back in the 1700′s, forming bonds that seem very ~gay~ in today’s light. Homosexuality wasn’t a very understood thing back then because rigid moral codes and censured education prevented people from learning more about sexuality.

 But Alexander Hamilton knew.

 He grew up on an island where ‘Sodomites’ (gay people) were dumped and  allowed to mingle with the island population. Alex knew that there was a certain zone of interactions between men that went from being merely friendly to sexual. He clearly steps into the bounds of sexual while fully realizing it.

“In drawing my picture, you will no doubt be civil to your friend; mind you do justice to the length of my nose and don’t forget, that I [- - - - - -].”

Ahhhhhhhhh my son Alex, could you be more explicit? Alex here is obviously referring to his something else (you know) with the knowledge that John Lauren’s knows the size. This sentence right here is basically just one long ;).

 “Your friend” seems to be written teasingly, as if they both know how far from friends they are.

And we can only guess how dirty Alex got in those last six  CUT OUT words.

“Dear Boy” [sent by John Laurens]

John laurens calls his wife his ‘dear girl’, and here he calls Alex his ‘dear boy’.  Moreover, Laurens did not call any other man he ever wrote to as his ‘dear boy’. Laurens seems to see Alex as on the same level, if not higher, as his own wife.

“Did I mean to show my wit? If I did, I am sure I have missed my aim. Did I only intend to [frisk]? In this I have succeeded, but I have done more. I have gratified my feelings, by lengthening out the only kind of intercourse now in my power with my friend.”

This phrase right here I unfortunately do not see a lot when people talk about Alex and John’s letters. This, to me, is one of the most explicit. “Wit” also mean one’s you know what (here I give a nod to the Ravenclaw moto), so Hamilton’s saying he was pretty much just messing around with John the last letter he sent. This is the only sort of “intercourse” he is able to have with John, as they are both so far apart. He is incapable of ‘sexual’ intercourse because of their distance, so he feels he must, in the 18th century way, sext.

“I would invite you after the fall to Albany to be witness to the final consummation.”

As you might have already guessed, Alex is inviting John to a threesome on his wedding night. The idea that Alex feels so at ease inviting John to a threesome with his wife suggests they have already had something going for a long time now. 

“But like a jealous lover, when I thought you slighted my caresses, my affection was alarmed and my vanity piqued. I had almost resolved to lavish no more of them upon you and to reject you as an inconstant and an ungrateful –”

Here Alex compares himself to John’s lover, and a jealous one at that. John seems to be shying away from Alex’s bawdiness, as if realizing how strange their relationships is in retrospect. Alex is scrambling to hang on to him, even though he knows well what are and what happens to Sodomites. He would do anything for John while knowing the consequences. And John is too afraid to join him. And who the hell knows what the last word was.

“And believe me, I am lover in earnest,”

*cough cough* looks like John knows exactly what happens when Alex’s feeling frisky.

“She [Eliza] loves you a l'americaine not a la francoise.”

The French were renowned for their relaxed stance on extramarital love affairs, while Americans were more Puritan-minding and thought love affairs only should happen in church-sanctioned marriages. Thus Eliza has an a l’americaine love of John Laurens, rather than an a la francoise.

“You will be pleased to recollect in your negotiations that I have no invincible antipathy to the maidenly beauties & that I am willing to take the trouble of them upon myself.”

*cough* this sentence is a bit confusing, and could be taken a few ways. What I infer from this is that Alexander Hamilton is willing, and John knows this, to assume an air of femininity because he finds no fault with it. It was commonly noted by people who wrote of Hamilton that he was very feminine in comparison with other men of his day. Alex’s femininity seems to please John, the topic even having been discussed between the two in ‘negotiations’.

“My ravings are for your own bosom” Alex desperately misses Laurens’ intimate contact in a way that, in my opinion, could never be mistaken as simply friendship. Alex literally wants to be held by John. How fucking heartbreaking is that.

“Yrs for ever”

Ok, this one isn’t sexual, but I had to add it because it is so heartbreaking. This was Alex’s last farewell note to John. That is, if he even received it. He died shortly after Alex sent the letter; whether he read the farewell or not is all lost to history. Alex loved John so much, despite the fact that both already had a wife. He would have always loved him, even if they had grown apart…

That’s it folks: time for me to cry.

My English teacher just spent 25 minutes explaining that Achilles and Patroclus aren’t gay and that the sodomites in Dante’s Inferno aren’t gay either. It was literally the most complicated and pretentious ‘no homo’ I’ve ever heard from a grown ass man. Did he read the Iliad with his eyes closed??? He literally said that the men in hell for being gay aren’t actually gay. I just….

the historicity of queerness in black sails, pt. 1

Hello, Tumblr! Let’s talk about pirates, queer stuff, and historical accuracy

There’s been renewed talk in certain spaces this week about queer narratives in historical drama. This has been spurred almost entirely by the series finale of Black Sails, which made the (distressingly) controversial decision to end its four-year run by giving its queer protagonists a largely happy ending.

If any show currently airing was going to take such a leap, it was always going to be Black Sails, which from the outset possessed a keen interest in exploring queer narratives. This was seen–correctly–as being something almost unheard of among historical dramas: a genre whose queer characters, if any, are relegated to the status of minor character or tragic subplot. But why is this, and why did Black Sails provoke some ire for heading in the opposite direction? There is an easy answer; an assumption lurking in the undertow of many an irate Facebook or Reddit comment: queer people in the 18th century didn’t get happy endings, did they?

This is part of a bigger question: There were no gay people then, right? In other words, characters can’t be openly gay in the show, because they killed men for that, didn’t they, and isn’t this supposed to be a ‘historical’ drama? So: how accurate is the queerness in Black Sails? Let’s take a look at some history.

Trigger warning for discussions of period-typical homophobia and a brief mention of rape. 

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hello love! So, I have two gay characters in the mid 1800s living in the English countryside. How realistic would it be for them to live a life together? I'm imagining a farm in the middle of nowhere, only a few friends, keeping to themselves...

Hi there, Nonny! While it’s sweet of you to begin your ask with “love”, maybe at least buy me coffee first! Joking aside, as nice as it is with terms of endearment I do aim to keep a certain level of professionalism. You wouldn’t begin an email to your professor with “love”, I hope? Anyway, let’s not dwell on this, onto you excellent question!

In short, it could be very realistic for your characters to do this. It’s complicated, however, and I shall try to explain.

The time period you’ve chosen for your story is an interesting period in time when it comes to same gender relationships. In the early 1700s, it became more common for men to live alone or share apartments while finding work in the growing cities. These expanding cities offered anonymity and the possibility for men to live as bachelors either alone or together with another man rather than acquiring a farm or business and marrying a woman. In the mid 1700s, a subculture of men who had sexual relations with other men began to form in northern Europe. Unfortunately, the more visible these men became, the more they were prosecuted. [1]

Does this mean your characters would live together in the city, more realistically? Possibly, yes, but fear not! We’re not done yet!

The early 1800s still saw a lot of prosecutions towards the so called “sodomites”, but this was a much less public affair and the law enforcement tried to handle it as quietly and discreetly as possible. It was also difficult to actually prove sodomy. [2] Someone would have to be caught in the act, so to speak.

Unlike earlier in European history, however, it had become an identity rather than an act. In England men who had sex with other men were referred to as “womanhaters” (and someone accused of sodomy would defend themselves saying they loved their wife or fiance very much). [3] This means that your characters would likely be careful of what kind of relationship they have. It would make sense for them to actually have a relationship, though, since homosexuality had become more of a identity. The Victorian Era also saw a rise in marrying for love and it also was not at all uncommon, especially for middle or upper class, to have very emotionally intense relationships with close same gender friends. A lot of passionate letters were written during this time.

So, your character could be very close and it wouldn’t really be questioned.

Homosexual men also built communities at this time. Though the lines between gender expression and expressing sexual preference are difficult to draw, it seems it was not uncommon for men who had sex with men to wear dresses or otherwise display what was seen as “effeminate behaviour”.

By the mid nineteenth century, Manchester men had formed a network that regularly put on fancy dress balls. [4]

This means that there was a subculture for homosexual men and it wouldn’t be unlikely for your characters to be part of such a community and meet.

Onto the mid nineteenth century and late nineteenth century! By this time there were two sides to the discourse on sex. One on side there were the social purity advocates who argued for restraint, even within marriage. On the other side were those who believed in Darwinism and that humans were a kind of animal and thus sexual urges were natural though they should still be controlled. [5] You question, though, Nonny, was about homosexual men and this part of the discourse on sex was much more bleak. As the 1800s continued, punishments became more and more severe for homosexual men. At the same time, however, these men spoke out more and more boldly about their desires as natural and healthy. [6] Therefore, your characters live in a time where on one hand they risked prosecution for sodomy but on the other hand they wouldn’t necessarily hide their homosexuality behind a marriage to a woman. Unless the story takes place later than 1885 when homosexuality rather than the act of sodomy became punishable.

Finally, let’s remember philosopher, poet and homosexual rights activist Edward Carpenter who “celebrated ‘homogenic’ love as part of his wider socialist vision; he retreated to the countryside with his working-class male lover, wore sandals, and ate vegetarian food.”[7] Your characters, then, may very well live together in the countryside! Keep in mind, though, that while they may have friends, they might be ostracised by the nearest village or town especially by working-class men who showed a lot of hatred towards homosexual men.[8] So give your characters a nice place to live and a few like-minded friends and then decide if they get a happy ever after or if they wind up prosecuted.

And there we are; at the end of this little journey! 

To summarise:

  • “Sodomy” was punishable by law throughout the 1800s.
  • In the early 1800s, unmarried men living together became more and more common but this was mostly true for larger cities and not small towns or the countryside.
  • By the mid and late 1800s more and more people began to speak up about the right to live a homosexual life. Sodomy was still illegal, though. 
  • In the later 1800s, it wasn’t impossible for two men to live together, be it in a city, town or out on the countryside. They still risked prosecution and were likely to be ostracised by society. 
  • 1837–1901 was he Victorian era and the view on sex and sexuality was most ambivalent. Purity was advocated but not by all as the other side of the argument was for a more liberated view on sex. Close and very romantic like friendships were nothing unusual for middle and especially upper class but sexual encounters were strictly regulated both by norm and law.

Some important details on sodomy, homosexuality and British Law:

Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I hope this was helpful! Good luck with your writing!

Signed, Captain.


[1] Anna Clark, Desire: A History of European Sexuality. (New York: Routledge, 2008) ,134 & 136. 

[2] ibid.136.

[3] ibid.

[4] 137.

[5] 149-150.

[6] 152.

[7] 153.

[8] 138-139.

Halloween Redeemed

It starts like this:

Rhinestone encrusted stilettos. Pure white fishnets. Short, lacy ivory shorts (borrowed from Allison for one night only). Delicate feathery wings and an elegant golden halo. Makeup, of course. Top it all off with silver and white glitter that looks fantastic against his darker skin.

“Won’t you be cold?” Neil asks. Of course the pretty runaway is thinking of practicalities and not of—

“Holy fucking shit, Hemmick!” That’s Allison. “Did your ass always look that amazing?”

“God, stop it,” Aaron moans. “He’s gonna have dudes trying to cop a feel all night. Andrew and I are going to be run ragged chasing them off.”

“Shhh.” Nicky shushes Aaron, one finger pressed to his lips before Aaron knocks his hand away. “All will be well. I’m an angel, right? Too divine to touch.”

“Right…” Matt drawls, eyebrows raised. Dan elbows him in the side.

Andrew, predictably, has yet to chime in. He’s too busy fixing Neil’s fox ears. Kevin looks disconcerted but keeps his mouth shut, too. Probably banking on the team leaving sooner if he can cut out the chit-chat.

“I think you look lovely,” Renee says. She reaches up to adjust the halo and smiles serenely. Tonight she’s been dressed by Allison in a costume that Nicky immediately recognizes and appreciates: Rogue from X-Men. Allison is going as Mystique—the blue skin version. Her costume only covers slightly more skin than Nicky’s.

“Are we ready?” Dan asks, surveying their group. Her face is lined with tiger stripes and she looks fierce and gorgeous, as usual. “Last time I checked the new foxes were doing their own Halloween initiation ritual.”

Nicky shivers, glad that he’s missing out on that party.

Andrew turns and heads out, expecting his group to follow, which they do. Nicky trails behind, feeling light and impossibly positive.

Keep reading

My friend studied the Bible and I can give their POV here(some is copy/pasted from other websites because I can’t find their entire text).

I hope this my give food for thought or else be at least somewhat helpful.

First off a sadly not well known fact: Sodom was not about gays. Period. The sins were oppression, adultery, lying, abetting criminals, arrogance, complacency and indifference to the poor(*cough*). The city was intended to be destroyed before the angels were sent.

The word sodomite for gay men comes from a mistranslation. When in 1508 Wycliffe translated the Bible into English, he saw the word arsenokoitai and translated it as ‘sin of Sodom’ for a reason no one gets. Arsenokoitai was basically invented by Paul by combining two words. There were A LOT of words already existing that referred to gay men so why did he feel the need to create a new word? That took the risk no one knew what he talked about.

Paulus had a friend, Philo. Philo was a Jewish man and he translated the two most often citied phrase, Lev 18:22 and 20:13 into Greek with “meta arsenos ou koimethese koitengunaikos“ and “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koitengunaikos”. He refers to those two passages when talking about temple prostitution in his books.

The context of Leviticus chapters 17 to 26, known as the Holiness Code, is not gays or lesbians. It is idolatry and shrine prostitution. Moses is not analogizing incest or beastiality with homosexuality. He is analogizing incest and beastiality with idol worship and shrine prostitution. The human authors of the Bible testify to the ongoing presence of cult prostitution, shrine prostitution or temple prostitution in ancient Israel. Various authors identify it by those names. Yet the Bible never links those pagan activities to being gay or lesbian, therefore it is untrue, unbiblical and dishonest for modern Christians to attack the LGBT+ community.

Out of those two recognized words, Paul made his own. There is no reason to believe that this referred to gays.

Also, context is important! The Roman letter was for the Romans. People who at that time had other deities and BIG ceremonies for those deities. Context is important.

To understand this, we must factor in the context. In Romans 1:26-27, the context isn’t two gay guys or two gay gals who fall in love and want to spend their lives together as a couple.

1. The biblical context is Paul making an argument against idolatry by summing up the Old Testament record of pagan worship, not homosexuality, not gays and lesbians.

2. The cultural context is the greatest pagan city of the ancient world, Rom, which featured hundreds of pagan temples where multitudes worshiped ‘false’ gods.

3. The doctrinal context is righteousness. God requires righteousness for salvation. We lack righteousness, as evidenced by the pagan idolatry Paul references. God provides righteousness as a free gift to everyone who wants it, including pagan idolaters.

4. The historical context is mid-first century Rome about 25 years after the resurrection of Christ, where the main problem was worship of ‘false gods’, not gays, not lesbians.

5. The linguistic context is Paul using the Greek word, akatharsian, in Romans 1:24 and 6:19, the same word used in the Greek Septuagint to describe idolatry and shrine prostitution.

Paul drives home his point by using the Greek word latreuō in v. 25, which we translate as, served. This word, in the Greek Septuagint, always refers to serving false gods. Paul used these words with purpose, to indicate he was referring to shrine prostitutes and their unholy worship of false gods.

I mean, Jesus himself basically said: “Some are born like this, some are born like that, not everyone will be able to accept that but God made it so.”

Remember that most of those people will not hesitate to cherry pick a few sentences while ignoring most of it.


Thanks for this!

Mod Bethany

anonymous asked:

What do you personally feel Gwash would've done had he found out about Lams?

my nice answer is that he would’ve left it alone and kept his mouth shut but my probably more realistic answer is a court martial and being tried as “sodomites”

A note about the Enslin case

It is true that- legally- sodomy was a capital offense, and had the court been able to prove that Enslin had anally penetrated Monhart, I’m sure his punishment would have been worse than drumming, the but fact remains that, in general, certain acts described as ‘sodomy’ were viewed on about the same level as adultery or whoring. They were socially unacceptable topics, but ultimately not something you’d be ostracized for or something people would immediately hate you for. 
This is a society that didn’t understand sexuality. At least not in terms of gendered preferences; they assumed that all men desired women and boys to some degree, and sexual acts (short of penetration) were just another sin. Since the Great Awakening, everyone had pretty much accepted that all people were born sinful (sinners in the hands of an angry God anyone?), so sodomites weren’t seen as ‘homosexuals’ so much as another brand of sinners. And they could often use the culture of sensibility and close male friendships to get away with public expressions of friendships or long-standing relationships.

fiftysevenacademics did a great essay series on sodomy and sensibility culture.

So, when we look at the case of Enslin, people might say that being drummed out of camp and publicly shammed was harsh, especially if the culture didn’t punish minor sexual acts between men- and especially when Steuben, who approved the punishment, stood accused of the same behavior.

In the eyes of the military, the important crime to punish was fraternization

Lieutenant Enslin had attempted sodomy with an enlisted private in his unit. If he had been with another officer of close or equal rank, it might not have been considered fraternization. The crime requires the act to be compromising towards the chain of command, and an officer- who during this era were typically of a much higher social class, had been intimate with a boy who, by virtue of his position in the army, was bound to follow his orders in battle. That is the definition of fraternization. The power dynamic is there.

The power dynamic wasn’t necessarily the primary concern so much as the effect of that dynamic on men in that unit. Suspecting that an officer might be using his position to make men under his command have sex with him would make the soldiers suspicious not only of that officer and his priorities, but also of each other. There’s issues of favoritism. The reasoning behind promotion gets thrown into suspicion, and doubts among themselves could make them unwilling to accept leadership- which is dangerous in battle. Particularly during Valley Forge when officers and senior NCOs were quitting the army in droves, leadership in the ranks was constantly moving and needed to be legitimized quickly. Especially to Steuben who trained in the Prussian style and paid particular attention to military leadership, fraternization was a serious issue. Fraternization is still a major issue in the military because it is so detrimental to the morale of a unit.

So, it’s shitty, but Steuben and Washington were right to punish this case harshly and publicly.

necromancy-savant  asked:

I come across the word "love" between friends a lot in Shakespeare, and I always like how they can say they love each other in a platonic way. However, I've noticed that it's not uncommon among people I talk to to take this as a sign of romantic or sexual love. I don't want to be that guy and naively say that two men (it's usually men) aren't together, but I feel like I'd need more to go on. Am I wrong to think that these characters are more comfortable expressing platonic love more than we are?

The quick answer is yes. We know that in the early modern period (and before) men were more comfortable expressing their love for one another, because it was more socially acceptable to do so. It was completely normal for men to kiss, and hug each other in public, for instance. Shakespeare’s England was what is known as a ‘homosocial’ society, which is to say that (mostly non-sexual) same-sex relations between men were privileged socially, so for instance trade deals, and even marriages were often facilitated to improve the social relations between men.

This means, on some level, that there was a valorisation of same-sex relationships, and of perfect friendships, especially between men. The idea was that men, having a higher intellectual capacity than women(!), would be able to form a more perfect relationship with one another than a heterosocial relationship could ever achieve. In the language of the time (and before) these same-sex relationships were called ‘amity’, and you’ll find many examples of ‘perfect amity’ spoken of in contemporary literature if you look for it. 

The difficulty from a modern perspective is that these passionate relationships between men could be entirely non-sexual, but they could also include physical intimacy. For instance, in the case of Michel de Montaigne and Étienne de La Boétie, Montaigne explicitly denies ‘the license of the Greeks’ as ‘rightly abhorrent to our manner’, although he speaks ardently of his love for his friend. In Sir Thomas Elyot’s Boke named the Governour, on the other hand, there is the exemplary tale of amity which heavily implies that there is a sexual relationship between Titus and Gysippus, the two friends. There is the sense that friendship is treated as a spectrum up to and including physical intimacy; it simply isn’t as sharply distinguished as it is these days. But if we’re talking strictly Shakespeare, most depictions of male friendship tend to show the failures of amity because of relationships with women, because as a tradition it’s being displaced or because the nascent forces of capitalism are destroying the way generosity works. It’s not that Shakespeare doesn’t believe in same-sex relationships (far from it), it’s more that he doesn’t show much faith in the possibility of ‘perfect’ amity in a complex society (The Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Merchant of Venice are two of many examples).

What’s really remarkable about this period is the means by which these socially acceptable forms of homoerotic behaviour are distinguished from the illegal and morally problematised idea of ‘sodomy’. You see, most of the people engaging in same-sex intimacy would not have considered themselves sodomites, hence why James I could have eroticised relationships with his favourites while decrying sodomy and effeminacy. Sodomy was a narrow category that often treated the case of an older man forcing himself on a younger male of a similar social class (a master doing it to a servant was seldom legally challenged). Because of these various distinctions, and because of the blurry line separating friendship and sexual attraction there were remarkably few recorded legal cases of sodomy from the early modern period.

The basic contention in academia has been that sexual identity, like gender identity, is an ideological construct. It’s not that people don’t naturally experience sexual desire for someone who might be considered the same gender, it’s just the categorisation of such desires that is a social construct. So while it might not be correct to call an early modern person or character homosexual, by the same token, they can’t be called heterosexual either. 

I’m afraid that this won’t make things any easier for you if you’re trying to separate platonic relationships from sexual or romantic ones, because that enterprise is anachronistic by nature. But then it’s anachronistic on either side whether you’re trying to establish that two men are friends or lovers, since lovers can be friends (and to add to that the word ‘friend’ could mean lover). 

The Fortune of War

So I’m reading The Fortune of War (Aubrey-Maturin #6) for the very first time ever (I know. I’m taking hellishly long with this series), and I regret not having picked it up sooner, because the first chapter is hilarious.

The opening scene with the admiral alone had me in stitches.

Here’s Jack failing (as usual) to get his idioms straight as he reacts to hearing that his men are to be put into a different ship:

“Oh, come sir,” cried Jack. “My lieutenants - and Babbington has followed me since my first command - my midshipmen, and all my bargemen in one fell sloop? Is this justice, sir?”

“What sloop, Aubrey?”

“Why, as to that, sir, I do not mean any specific vessel: it was an allusion to the Bible. But what I mean is, that it is the immemorial custom of the service…”

The “immemorial custom” quickly becomes a running theme:

Jack and the Admiral had known one another off and on for twenty years; they had spent many evenings together, some of them drunken; their collision therefore had none of the cold venom of a purely official encounter. It was none the less eager for that, however, and presently their voices rose until the maidens in the courtyard could clearly make out the words, even the warm personal reflections, direkt on the Admiral’s part, slightly veiled on Jack’s, and again and again they heard the cry “the immemorial custom of the service”.

Culminating in this, almost Austen-like exchange:

“And I know very well that you have always taken good care of your youngsters. The immemorial custom of the service…”

Oh, f– the immemorial custom of the service,” cried the Admiral: and then appalled at his own words, he fell silent for a while.

Eventually the admiral gives in, because:

“You remind me of that old sodomite.”

“Sodomite, sir?” cried Jack.

“Yes. You who ware so fond of quoting the BIble, yuo must know who I mean. The man who wrangled with the Lord about Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham, that’s the name!”

Speaking of the service… the Captain of La Fleche, a musician, regrets that his piano is out of tune, by casually commenting that

but it is a sad jingling little box, after all. How I wish I could press a piano-tuner.

No one bats an eye at that, because that’s how they do it in the navy. Just kidnap the people you need.


And that’s after the bit where one of Stephen’s wombats is revealed to be eating Jack’s hat:

“Killick, Killick there: what’s amiss?”

“Which it’s your scraper, sir, your number one scraper. The wombat’s got at it.”

“Then take it away from him for God’s sake.”

“I duresn’t, sir, said Killick. “For fear of tearing the lace.”

“Now, sir,” cried the Captain, striding into the great cabin, a tall, imposing figure. “Now, sir” - addressing the wombat, one of the numerous body of marsupials brought into the ship by her surgeon, a natural philosopher - “give it up directly, d’ye hear me, there?”

 The wombat stared him straight in the eye, drew a length of gold lace from its mouth, and then deliberately sucked it in again.

And then, of course, we eventually switch POV to Stephen and are greeted with this line:

“Wallis,” said Maturin, “I am happy to find you here. How is your penis?”

Men. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Mr Wallis’s delighted smile changed to gravity; a look of sincere self-commiseration came over his face, and he said that it had come along pretty well, but he feared it would never be quite the member it was.


I also can’t believe I forgot how married Stephen and Jack are? Such as when Jack asks Stephen to “be civil” when they meet the Captain of the ship taking them home (and then he’s so proud when Stephen proves himself to be the perfect gentleman).

And then there’s this bit from Jack’s POV:

Dr Maturin came aboard in his usual elegant manner, kicking the port-lids, cursing the kind hands that propelled him up the side, and arriving breathless on deck, as though he had climbed the Monument at a run.


And that’s only the first chapter. And I didn’t even mention “the lesser of two weevils.”

anonymous asked:

was barron von steuben gay? a while ago someone told me he was and he was kicked out of the army because of it

Here, I made a presentation that includes this. But yes! He was gay!

Baron von Steuben was one of the first cases of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.“ 

Benjamin Franklin learned of a "brilliant Prussian” military genius, Lt. Gen. Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who had a string of successes across Germanic Europe. There was a problem- he’d been asked to depart many of those states and countries because of his “affections for members of his own sex,”.

Then in 1777 von Steuben literally escaped imprisonment in what is now Germany and traveled to Paris. There, Franklin was interviewing candidates to assist Washington back in the colonies when his fellow Colonial representative Silas Deane brought von Steuben to his residence for an interview.

During the process, Franklin discovered von Steuben’s reputation for having “affections” with males and the issue became pressing, as members of the French clergy demanded the French court, as in other countries, take action against this sodomite, whom they considered a pedophile. 

Those allegations were fueled by von Steuben’s close ties to Prince Henry and Frederick the Great, also “widely rumored to be homosexual.”

Franklin decided von Steuben’s expertise was more important to the colonies than his sexuality. Along with Franklin and Deane, and personal friends of the baron: Pierre Beaumarchais, author of the “Figaro” plays and an arms dealer who supplied arms for the ship von Steuben eventually sailed on, and Claude Louis, Comte de Saint-Germain, the minister of war under Louis XVI. What the letter didn’t mention was that he was about to be arrested and appear before judges in France.

“It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys, which the laws forbid and punish severely. I have even been informed that that is the reason why M. de Steuben was obliged to leave Hechingen and that the clergy of your country intend to prosecute him by law as soon as he may establish himself anywhere.”

Washington rewarded von Steuben with a house at Valley Forge, which he shared with his aide-de-camps Capt. William North and Gen. Benjamin Walker. Walker lived with him through the remainder of his life, and von Steuben, who neither married nor denied any of the allegations of homosexuality, left his estate to North and Walker. His last will and testament has been described as a love letter to Walk and has been purported to describe their “extraordinarily intense emotional relationship,”.

Adding to that were the constant rumors about his sexuality, which by 1790, reached one of the revolution’s first families, the Adamses of Massachusetts.

Charles, the son of John and Abigail Adams- was what today would be called the black sheep of the family. His biggest problem was alcoholism but, as revealed in letters among the various members of the family, the Adamses had other concerns.

“There are references to [Charles’] alleged proclivity for consorting with men whom his parents regarded as unsavory.” One of these men was von Steuben. Charles had become infatuated with and adored Von Steuben. It is clear from the family letters that the Adamses were concerned about a relationship between Charles and the baron. Von Steuben’s sexuality was an open secret, one that he himself never challenged, other than to ask Washington to defend his moral character. But John Mulligan another one of Baron von Steuben’s “boys” was extremely close with Charles. 

It was von Steuben, a gay man, who played a giant role in not only the creation of American military, but the idea of military academies, a standing Army and even veterans organizations. As said by many: if George Washington was the father of the nation, then von Steuben, a gay man, was the father of the United States military.

Ellstra’s Kylux fic rec Vol. 2

I decided to make another fic rec in the moments when I’m too drained of energy to do anything that requires brain activity. I couldn’t tag some people (again, tumblr is fucked) which breaks my heart. The fics are in no particular order, only organised in groups from filth to innocent T rated fics (which I honestly didn’t expect to see. Bless you guys.) Enjoy!

Rated E

Grease Lightning by @slutstiels 4k, Modern Au “I’ll fix it for free–” Hux gasps, hardly able to believe his ears. The man holds up a finger to Hux’s lips and Hux frowns, flinching back instinctively. The offending finger is pulled away and Hux reflexively licks his lips, tasting salt and copper; the man’s eyes flow the movement of his tongue before those eyes focus on his own again. “–if you let me fuck you.” “Excuse me?” Kylo is a car mechanic and Hux is a very rich man with a very expensive car that needs to be fixed immediately. Yes, this sounds like a porn intro, and it is. And a great one.

Into the Garbage Chute by @longstoryshortikilledhim 15.5k, Techienician, Modern AU Techie and Matt are Star Wars fans who meet at a convention. This is such a sweet fic, you’ll love yourself for reading it. Techie and Matt are huge adorable dorky nerds and I love them.

it’s not fashionable to love me by @thesunandoceanblue 10.5k, Modern AU Stop staring at his jeans. He knows they’re too tight on him. That’s the whole point; so people will stare at his—don’t stare at his junk.
Hux is persistently bothered by an odd but attractive man during his shifts. Hux is a horrible person who cheats on his boyfriend, Phasma is the best, Kylo is hot and straight-forward. It’s set in a tea shop which is something I never considered as a setting for a fic but it works really well.

In the Flesh by @srawratskcuf 3k, High school AU Kylo is that one kid in school who gives piercings in the bathroom. Prep!Hux comes in for one on a dare and keeps coming back for more (a good mix of ‘dam these are hot’ and ‘damn hes hot’) Seriously, it’s disgusting and Hux is so pretentious you’ll want to spill blueberry juice on his expensive shirt and it’s the most hilarious thing ever.

Bohemian Rhapsody by @longstoryshortikilledhim 18k, Modern AU Kylo is a street musician in Prague. Hux is touring with the prestigious First Order Orchestra. They collide. Hard. In the unlikely case you haven’t read this fic yet, drop everything you’re doing and do yourself the favour. It’s everything you might want from this AU and more, the style is gorgeous and it’s set in my country so bonus points for the advertisement.  

More below the cut! 

Keep reading

lesbians: lesbians are more attractive than straight women

every straight cis person within a 10000 mile radius: wow so youre a heterophobe? you want to slaughter me personally with a cleaver? You want to abort every cishet baby? wow what happened to women uplifting women you disgusting carpet munching fish breathed sodomite bulldyke i hope all lesbians are the first to go when mike pence opens all the conversion camps

Dear Christian LGBTQ members,
  • You are valid
  • God does NOT hate you
  • You are NOT a mistake
  • You are NOT a result of sin
  • You can still love God and He will still love you
  • Psalm 139:14 “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”
  • I apologize on the behalf of all the pastors, church elders, and all children of God who have told you otherwise

The only time in Bible where it says “homosexuals” is in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV).

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

So the bottom line is that, it doesn’t matter if you are gay. You are not any more sinful than any straight person. And at the same time you are not any more saved.

anonymous asked:

Here's the thing: it wasn't Maggie's brown family that threw her out. Maggie's dad is corn-fed Nebraska white, not that that matters because of the one-drop rule and because f*ck her if she's going to own a damn thing about him anyway as far as she's concerned. Maggie's mom and her aunt are sisters and they came to the US on a restricted work visa to work housekeeping at a Motel 6 in Blue Springs, but it's a lousy job with no guaranteed hours (so no guaranteed income) so they pick up some

off-the-books work where they can find it. Maggie’s mother picks up some seasonal work at a corn farm and meets the sweet, dashing son of the farmer and, over time, they fall in unlikely love, so when she gets pregnant, it’s not hard for them to decide to get married. He doesn’t like ‘illegals’–says so all the time, that he hates that he has to hire them to keep his prices competitive–but he handles cognitive dissonance well, so they get married, and she gets her green card through him, and they are actually pretty happy for a long time. Maggie’s aunt keeps working at the Motel 6 but her parents pay her to work the farm, too. But Maggie can tell, looking back, that her mother always felt vulnerable in that relationship, even after she had her green card and then her citizenship, because her husband’s love for her was his exception and not his rule, and she had broken the law for several years. When Maggie’s dad got that phone call from Eliza’s dad, he lost every ounce of his Nebraska cool and began hurling things: slurs at Maggie and at her mother, a backhand across Maggie’s jaw, an announcement that Maggie had fifteen minutes to pack what she could carry and get her sodomite self out of his house. And Maggie’s mother was terrified, because if he fought back he could turn her in in his rage, and even if her citizenship keeps her safe, he could turn her *sister* in to punish her, and her sister would definitely be at risk with the INS. So she helps Maggie pack and whispers to her, “Go to your Tia, mi corazon. Tell her what happened.” And Maggie does: she takes her backpack and walks five miles from the farm into the closest thing Blue Springs has to a downtown, to the one-bedroom where her Tia lives. She doesn’t talk and Tia doesn’t ask her to: she serves a quick dinner of spaghetti-os that they eat quietly together. Tia promises enchiladas the next day when she’s less tired from work and that’s when Maggie breaks and tells her everything. Tia holds  her and rocks her and tells her she loves her and thinks she should have expected this from a man who doesn’t know what it feels like to take risks, to make yourself vulnerable, to try to be happy, and she wants only the greatest happiness for her niece. She is poor so Maggie works to pay bills while she finishes school. Maggie’s mama sends money when she can. And when she starts her job the first thing Maggie does is research how to sponsor her aunt for immigration.   And that’s why Maggie is so sensitive to the plight of alien refugees: because f*ck if having paperwork to say you’re allowed to be somewhere, and looking like you belong there, have a damn thing to do with whether you’re worth a damn thing. (End)            

^^ This is canon and you are perfect and you should write the damn show and I love you so much.

Thank you so much for putting the effort in to share this beautiful backstory with us. You are incredible, and I am sending you so, so, so much gratitude and love, darling <3 <3 <3 <3                                                      

anonymous asked:

Since its valentines, I was looking up "the bible on same sex marriages." I found a verse that I hadn't seen before, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. And nowwwww in shook and scared and panicking bc I just, my confidence in my faith and sexuality is so fragile and I just need help understanding this.

Hey there! Rest easy, anon. It’s okay to feel shaken by something you hadn’t seen before in Scripture – it’s also okay to wrestle with it. God invites us into conversation with the Bible – so let’s gather some facts that will allow us to converse. 

(Here are the two verses from 1 Cor 6, for those who want to see them: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”)

For this particular passage, the issue of translation actually comes into play, along with issues of cultural context. See this post for an overview of all the “clobber claim” passages used against LGBT folks; and especially see page 11 of my research paper from a few years ago, where I go in depth about the translation issues. …Actually, I’ll go ahead and paste my paper’s whole conversation on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (as well as 1 Timothy 1:10) right here for easy access: 

~ 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Two other verses in the New Testament letters are frequently interpreted as condemnations of homosexuality because of the standard ways that two ambiguous Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are translated.

The first of these words, malakoi, is used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. While modern translators usually render it “men who practice homosexuality” or “homosexuals,” it more literally means “soft,” and “it appears elsewhere in the New Testament to describe fine clothing (see Matthew 11:8). In a moral context, the term was used to describe a lack of self-control, weakness, laziness, or cowardice. …The word was an all-purpose insult for anything considered to be feminine” (Vines, 2014, p. 119). Vines goes on to note that in Greco-Roman culture this term more often referred to men who “succumbed to the charms of women,” since doting excessively on a woman—fixating too much on the romantic aspects of a relationship or allowing a female lover to influence one’s decisions—was considered unmanly (p. 120). Thus, he explains, malakoi is generally translated in older versions of the Bible as “effeminate” rather than “homosexual” (p. 122). With all of this in mind, perhaps a more fitting translation would be something like “those who demonstrate weakness” or, to keep the meaning as broad as the original term, “those demonstrating soft qualities.”

Arsenokoitai, used in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, is even more difficult to translate accurately, as it appears very infrequently in Greek writings (Vines, 2014, p.122). The word may, in fact, have been coined by Paul, and is a compound word combining arsen, “male,” and koites, the term for “bed” most often used when a sexual connotation is intended. Thus, the usual interpretation of this word is “men who sleep with other men” (p. 123). However, Vines relates, the few examples of this word that can be found in later Greek texts “indicate it most often referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior” (p. 124). Vines provides evidence from three texts on pages 124 and 125 of his book, which are worth reviewing in full.

It is interesting to note some of the most common translations of arsenokoitai: along with “homosexuals” and “perverts,” the word “sodomites” is often used. Drawing back to the earlier discussion of Sodom, the choice to use this term here for a word that in its original form clearly shares no root with the word “Sodom” unfairly influences a reader’s perspective of the sin of Sodom. If a Bible uses the word “Sodomite” to mean a male practitioner of same-sex acts, the reader is influenced to interpret Sodom’s annihilation-worthy crime as being homosexuality, before they have the chance to consider for themselves whether that is necessarily the case. On that note, this paper will turn to its final discussion, that of linguistic methods employed by some Christians to influence biblical interpretations. ~

End of paper passage.

Now, even if there is a solid argument to translating these terms as “homosexual” etc., cultural context can and should be taken into account by any responsible and reverent reader of the Bible. After all, we read other areas of the NT letters that appear to condone slavery in light of their ancient context. See this post (linked above as well) for some discussions on interpreting Scripture while keeping context in mind.

I also recommend Austen Hartke’s short video “Are you taking the Bible seriously?” Wander through our interpretation tag (particularly this post) for even more information. Peace <3