Tell me about the history of lesbians, /his/
Who were some famous historical lesbians? Pre-modern history, that is
>>420357
The people of lesbos weren't particularly historically important. Modern lesbianism developed in the 1970s in the United States and United Kingdom.
Stop anachronistically backprojecting.
>>420357
We don't know much since the large majority of history was centered on men
>>420366
>Modern lesbianism developed in the 1970s in the United States and United Kingdom.
hahaha what the fuck
>>420384
Bother to read some history of sexualities. The "passing women" of the 1900s and 1910s bear no relationship to the sub-culture of "lesbianism" that developed in the 1970s.
>>420396
Can you recommend some?
As far as many sexologists understand it, male homosexuality is a real thing while female homosexuality is nothing but attention whoring snowflakism.
>>420431
source?
>>420427
Foucault is a useful starting place for you to realise that "sexualities" are momentary and geographically located constellations of social behaviours and customs.
Anderson and Zinsser "A History of Their Own" 2 vol OUP is probably a useful resource for the context of gender through time.
I like recommending "No Bath but plenty of bubbles" which is a history of the UK GLF
>>420440
Thank you anon. I'd been meaning to read some Foucault, and now I know where to start.
Anne Lister was pretty cool
>>420443
Cultural history is, frankly, for cunts by the way. Do your reading, then step up into classed social history and deal with stuff like burning women to steal their land.
>>420448
>wanted to read her diaries for fap material
>can't find them anywhere
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>420469
diaries or fap materiel?
>>420490
She apparently wrote very graphically about stuff she did with women.
>>420492
>There are records of gay subcultures
Bullfucking shit. Mollies bear no relationship to Stonewall.
>An occasional switch in terminology
Yeah, sure, that's all that's going on. And heterosexuality has been constant.
There's a board for universalising moralism and ahistoricism, it begins with t and ends in h
>>420357
There's not a whole lot of famous lesbians because lesbianism was greatly discouraged through much of history. The most awesome historical lesbian though was probably Ana Lezama de Urinza.
>>420366
>>420396
>>420440
>>420521
>Modern lesbianism developed in the 1970s in the United States and United Kingdom.
Modern lesbianism did, but to suggest that there weren't women romantically attracted to each other prior to that is ridiculous.
>>420431
They're full of shit. Pick related.
>>421444
>anon on 4chan is a source
I don't have a stake on either side but this is silly
>>421444
lel you go "girl"
>>421444
>got it?!?!?
le strong woman face but ignore the additional chins and dyed hair
>>421496
She has a point though. Why is it so hard to believe that women can love other women when there's so many actual lesbians around as proof? Why could there be so many gay men and then have the same thing for women be LITERALLY impossible? Just because some girls do lezzy stuff for attention doesn't mean that there's no such thing as real lesbians. Do you think the women in pic related are gay for male attention?
>>421543
She's another cool one. I almost forgot about her.
>>420357
Wasn't there some shitty ex/sci/riment this year where they kind of confirmed that all bitches are lesbian? That heterosexuality is a male thing and all women are at least somewhat bi?
>>420396
Well Bull Dyke/femme culture was around atleast since the twenties in Black communities in NYC.
White Lesbians eventually took that word but they had their own butch/femme communities
>>421444
Thing about lesbianism was that it was never really outlawed and banned in the past (even the Bible outlawed SPECIFICALLY just male homosexuality), yet the amount of lesbians was minimal. Only when it became fashionable suddenly every woman and her mom started claiming they are dykes.
There's even shit like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_lesbianism
Apparently it's normal for females to just consciously "become lesbians" if they hate men, but men are unable to do that. At best they come up with some MGTOW shit because they're either born gay, straight, or bi, it's not fluid with them.
>>420521
No shit there have been some changes in attitudes and social norms. But what on Earth are you even claiming when you say there's "no relationship?" There have continuously been urban subcultures of people doing male/male and female/female sex for centuries.
>>421739
In the Bible, Paul condemns "unnatural relations" between women. And in medieval times a Archbishop of Canterbury wrote that "If a woman practices vice with a woman, she shall do penance for three years." So it's been banned and outlawed by religious authorities for awhile.
People can be gay for different reasons. Some are born that way and some choose it as a lifestyle. But most straight women who experiment with other women don't end up becoming gay permanently. Experimenting is different.
Both men and women can "become gay". See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality with some good sources at the bottom. Sometimes people are "prison gay" or "gay for the stay".
"W-women can't possibly not like muh dick!"
>>421444
>Modern lesbianism did, but to suggest that there weren't women romantically attracted to each other prior to that is ridiculous.
You're aware that there's a lot of historical argument about when romanticism developed, and was generalised as an ideal element of human sexual contact?
>>421914
>There have continuously been urban subcultures of people doing male/male and female/female sex for centuries.
Bullshit. Non-marriage relationships have been mostly structured by their discontinuities. Your attempt to claim a continuity is part of a bourgeois pseudo-nationalism. Go on mate, show the link, step by step, between the Mollies and Stonewall, in terms of continuous MSM undergrounds.
Do it faggot.
>>422238
>I have read some Foucault, therefore lesbians never had sex in some shed in 600 B.C.E
Not him but you sound like a buffoon.
>>422238
>nationalism
Dude what
>>422227
Maybe before romanticism, it was just about sex then. Doesn't mean there weren't lesbians:P
>>422238
>Non-marriage relationships have been mostly structured by their discontinuities. Your attempt to claim a continuity is part of a bourgeois pseudo-nationalism.
Speak English, please.
>Go on mate, show the link, step by step, between the Mollies and Stonewall, in terms of continuous MSM undergrounds.
OK, well, there's no use in starting with the Molly subculture, since there was already an established gay subculture in North America by their time. There appears to have been a gay scene in Philadelphia by that time. Records from the early to middle 19th century are fairly scarce, but gay subculture is described in numerous source from the late 1800s and is described as already well-established. Attention from the criminal justice system is also apparent and well-documented, as the gay underground was largely associated with red-light districts. Gay rights groups were formed as early as the 1920s.
I guess I'm still a little uncertain as to what you're asserting or asking me to explain to you--lists of gay bathhouses from the middle 19th century?
>>422466
So Mollies have no connection with Stonewall? So there are historical and geographical discontinuities in the subcultures where men predominantly have sex with men?
Maybe, just fucking maybe, this means that the culture meaning of fucking other men, or being a participant in a sub-culture or criminal underground where men predominantly fuck me, changes over time?
Maybe this means that your attempt to claim the past experiences of men who have sex with men as being "gay," a term which rose to prominence as a political call, is anachronistic as fuck.
Take your whig history and shove it up your cunt.
>>422496
I'm the "Whig" here? Where are you getting this crap from? And, again, what are you actually even asserting? Do you think there was a time in recorded history when there wasn't a gay underground? When and where? And what on Earth is the essence of this "modern homosexuality" or "modern lesbianism" that I'm supposed to account for?
Sex maybe, but it wouldnt be as rampant as you think. Imagine a world where people throw shit onto the streets, theres no cures for disease, and if you are hungry you have to kill a deer. Not to mention getting caught mishandling your lineage is political suicide and only the lowliest peasants dont care.
>>422444
Female homosexuality did exist.
The word lesbianism associated with female homosexuality did not, sure, but that clearly doesn't matter at all to the discussion we are having.
>>422563
He's telling you that continuity is a lie hatched by the capitalists
>>422563
>whig
Yes, mate. You're the one telling a political story of progress where you conflate disparate phenomena under a single head.
If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "whig history" you shouldn't be posting on a history board.
>Do you think there was a time in recorded history when there wasn't a gay underground? When and where?
Pretty much everywhere prior to the matachine society.
>essence
There's a board, you belong there, it is a wonderful place where you don't have to understand sources, or cultural difference over time, or that words aren't social phenomena. It is a board where you can tell invented mythic tales of triumph. It is >>>/pol/. Fuck off back there.
>>422573
No, it clearly doesn't because obviously /his/ is a place for eisegesis out the arsehole, whig historiography, anachronism, and the lack of the least subtlety of reading the past as it was.
>WIE ES EIGENTLICH GEWESEN
It isn't that hard, it is the core principle of our fucking discipline.
>>420357
lesbians were generally ignored, they were just seen as playful
it was not uncommon for men to allow their wives to spend a lot of time with each other, bathe, sleep in the same beds, kiss and think nothing of it
>>422607
>No, it clearly doesn't because obviously /his/ is a place for blah blah
No that's not why. He asked a simple question, but you have to inject your pseudo-intellectual continental tradition retardedness into it.
Now either go back to whatever hugbox you came from, or answer OP's question without trying to sound like a Marxist who wants to destroy Western Civilization because of the etymology of the word "lesbian".
>>422638
>but you have to inject your pseudo-intellectual continental tradition retardedness into it.
>Ranke
>continental
You really have no idea what the discipline of history is, do you?
>>422654
>You really have no idea what the discipline of history is, do you?
Yes I do. I perfectly well know what history is. It is to study events of the past.
Are you going to add anything noteworthy to the thread, or are you going to go on another tirade about how "events of the past" is a Whig word, and how this oppresses you?
>>422665
I've never talked about "oppression" you strawmanning dogfuck. I've talked about disciplinarity. Leopold Ranke was opposed to Hegel's conception of history as "Geist," and is pretty much the definition of an anti-continental in that Ranke requires a return, not to "the events" of the past, but to the documentary record of the past.
Your conception of "event" is far closer to the continental tradition, chiefly people like Benjamin, than any historiographical account of the past.
History is the study of the documentary records of the past, and the production of descriptions of the past "as it was," (wie es eigentlich gewesen).
You have no awareness of basic terms in the discipline, and you feel free to project your own ideology onto the past in exactly the same way you feel free to shit all over /his/. Fuck off, sir, fuck off back to >>>/pol/ where your grievous disciplinary failures are celebrated.
>>422586
The Mattachine Society was founded at a time when there had already been a large gay subculture, with publications, terminology that is continuous through at least the late 19th century and in some cases back to the Elizabethan era, community institutions, prior attempts at political activism, public backlashes, etc. This is very apparent even if you just read Mattachine publications.
I'm not going to touch your explosion at my use of the term "essence'--which was to try to rephrase something you had said a little earlier.
You've been abusive and borderline incoherent throughout this conversation. You've made vague demands and claims and refused to clarify them, and you're now resorting to calling me a fascist because you got triggered by a word I used. I'm done with this conversation Get mental help.
>>422684
>a large gay subculture, with publications, terminology that is continuous through at least the late 19th century and in some cases back to the Elizabethan era, community institutions, prior attempts at political activism, public backlashes, etc. This is very apparent even if you just read Mattachine publications.
>gay
No, once again, you're projecting a peculiarly late 20th century reading of the cultures of men who have sex with men back to Shakespeare's day, and claiming a continuity and uniformity that is simply not present.
Go fuck yourself you eisegetic dickhead.
>>422684
>and you're now resorting to calling me a fascist
Cool strawman bro.
>>420475
La Maupin wasn't a lesbian. Aside from that nun she seduced and kidnapped, all of her lovers were men.
And given her general disposition, that incident probably had more to do with defiling the nun's holy vow of celibacy than an actual sexual preference for women.
>>420521
>>422238
>>422466
>>422693
When I'm talking about "lesbians" in >>421444
>>421643
>>422127
and >>422324 I'm not talking about a modern political movement. I'm talking about homosexual women. There's been homosexual women around for all of history and for the last hundred years or so we're called "lesbians". I'm just saying there's always been lesbians and that they're real and not just fake attention seeking behavior like some people seem to think. There's lesbianism that has nothing to do with men.Women can be gay and not be part of a modern political movement or a continuous historical subculture. Some women are just attracted to other women. That's all.
>>423270
"Homosexuality" is a medically derived norm from the 19th century.
Try again.
>>423270
>Some women are just attracted to other women.
Yeah, but women can't do anything to each other except lick and finger, so I can't really take it seriously. It's like "I'm lesbain!" and I'm like yeah, ok, foreplay is cute.
>>422568
Since family lines were so important, especially for upper class, I imagine most lesbians hid their feelings or had affairs in secret, but still married men and had children because it's what they were expected to do.
>>423273
It doesn't matter what word you use. You're just arguing semantics. Lesbian, gay and homosexual can all work. My point is that there's always been women attracted to other women.
>>423307
>women can't do anything to each other except lick and finger
>ok, foreplay is cute
You know literally nothing about girl sex.
>>423356
>It doesn't matter what word you use.
Oh good, you pederast.
It is a word that has been commonly used about people who fuck people of the same gender or hang out in the community of people who fuck people of the same gender.
You child molestor.
>You're just arguing semantics.
Sure thing baby rapist. "It is just semantics," you pedophile.
>My point is that there's always been women attracted to other women.
Doubtful. You've just made transhistorical the following categories:
women
attraction
women attracted to women
>be bisexual male, post on /lgbt/ regularly where the well-read lesbians there know who I'm about to name-drop
>actually took a history course on modern Britain where I first learned of same
>ctrl+f various permutations of the phrase, find nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_of_Llangollen
Theirs is a fairly happy and romantic story, in the sense that they were allowed to live as they pleased, and did not get forced into marriage, the asylum, etc. Two upper class women lived together quietly and over the years, were "accepted" (this of course means a different thing two hundred years ago, the better word is perhaps tolerated) by their relatives. As you can see, they were also as butch as possible for the period.
OP has opened an /lgbt/ door, so I also have to mention the (gay) artists Gilbert and George (who have a history of artwork over 25 years old!) as a similar duo, both in the length and opacity of their relationship, and how they "carry themselves"-that is, their public personas. Both are clearly what we would describe now as homosexual(?) couples, but the latter have a policy of being opaque, and "polite-upper-class" in interviews. Their art however is often a full po-mo (literal) shit-show.
It is also touching that the ladies died within two years of each other.
>>423375
>Doubtful.
Why did the Church feel the need to ban lesbianism as far back as Paul's letters if there weren't lesbians? Why did Sappho write love poems about girls if she didn't like them? Please explain how its "doubtful" that there's always been women attracted to other women when there's examples from ancient history.
>>423392
That's a very nice story. I didn't know about it.
>>423420
And back to your transhistorical categories.
I'm sure that Paul was banning free individuals before post-enlightenment law having romantic sex with each other towards pair bonding and property-distribution marriage.
Sure he was.
>Sappho
>girls
Where'd this category of "Girl" suddenly come from?
You want to claim that your modern perversion has existed for all time.
The only people worse than your sort are the fucking heterosexuals.
>>423495
>transhistorical
what the fuck are you on about with this pseudo-intellectual bullshit?
>>423495
>I'm sure that Paul was banning free individuals before post-enlightenment law having romantic sex with each other towards pair bonding and property-distribution marriage.
Thanks for agreeing with me. I'm knew you'd understand.
>You want to claim that your modern perversion has existed for all time.
Because it has. There's always been women who got all hot and bothered from other women. We're usually called lesbians. Maybe were called different things in the past, but that's the word now.
>>423595
Women haven't existed for all time, lady. And the category of woman has been in continuous change.
>We're usually called lesbians.
Women who fuck women have rarely been called anything.
>Maybe we were called different things in the past
Maybe you WERE DIFFERENT THINGS.
Ever heard the phrase "naming is calling?"
Ever get pissed off when someone calls you a slut or a dyke? "Semantics" it ain't.
>>423546
It is pretty basic work for the historian, m80.
>>423660
>tfw you're right, but other people aren't even arguing against you because they can't grasp a paradigm shift.
>>423688
>tfw I literally take brain damage for a living, while future educators have trouble with this.
>>423696
What's worse is that they tend to react politically to it, cast you as their Other, and castigate you for disagreeing with their political right to exist and shitpost over /his/. All you want them to do is have the tiniest bit of epistemological humility and read some fucking sources.
>>420357
Who cares none of them were important to the betterment of society in any way. You would do better finding these historical figures by googling useless shit.
>>423720
The weirdest part is, if they actually followed through on this transtemporalism, they'd pretty much be making homophobic arguments themselves.
If you say all non-comforming sexual identities before the 20th century were just 'differently named', the Uranists paint a pretty shocking picture of what 'gay men' are like.
And in fact, that's exactly what modern Homophobes argue is the case.
>>423750
I thought I explicitly made that argument up thread when I suggested there was no semantic difference between "lesbian" and "pedophile" to the [I hope, given stupidity can be cured] young lady.
Ah well. Undergraduates gonna undergraduate.
>>420448
>muh sex matters
>>420431
>sexologists
Sexology is nothing but perverts and sexual deviants using social science garbage to justify their disgusting fetishes.
>>420431
this man knows
lesbianism is just female grooming, which they abandon the second they see a guy with good posture who looks like hes checking her out
Do lesbians cut their hair short because they want to be masculine?
>>421444
As a faggot, your pic is bullshit.
>>423688
>intentionally misunderstanding your interlocutor to flex your po-mo muscle.
Enjoy being another underpaid (but probably unemployed) victim of academia.
>>420431
>>425238
Agreed. And even "true" lesbians that have never been with men, if they lost the 2nd and 3rd chin and did squats in the gym, I'm sure the attention they got from guys would make them second guess that they're lesbian.
This is anecdotal, but I have a friend who truly is lesbian... She only became that after she was raped by two of her cousins at 13. She would've been sucking dick just like all the other girls were it not for her dumbass cousins.
>>421739
Only the English translations condemn homosexuality. "As" should have been "while" to condemn threesomes (already condemned) and the king's men didn't understand a particular Greek slang (which literally translates to "male-beds" yet essentially means "pimp").
Sick and Mayadamn tired of the God hates fags meme.
>god has harem of 12 dudes
>claim he's a homophobe
>Pre-modern history, that is
What do you have against Queen Christina, aside from her portraitist thinking giant eyes made you moe?
>>423660
A woman is a female human. You aren't a biologist.
>>425279
Looks like you can't identify po-mo m80.
Better hand in that degree.
>>426567
>A woman is a female human. You aren't a biologist.
You aren't any good at reasoning.
ok
relevant
>>420521
>>There's a board for universalising moralism and ahistoricism, it begins with t and ends in h
I might be retarded but I can't figure out which board this is
>>420357
Wow OP looks like you really fucked up here
Next time you want to start a thread on /his/ about girls who fucked other girls you'd better call them "female humans who preferred to engage in sexual acts with other female humans rather than men a majority of the time"
>>428459
wew lad
>>428492
Yeah it's kind of a shitshow. Regretting making it now
>>428553
Well if you look between all the shitposting, there's the names of some pretty neat historical lesbians in the thread that you can look up.
>>428675
Obversely
>>427131
Well if you think otherwise please gather your research and publish your findings. Your Nobel prize awaits
Florence King was a right wing writer in the late 20th century who, while not strictly lesbian, had what she called "lesbian periods" where she slept with women. Her most significant long term relationships were with women as well. She couldn't stand politically active lesbians or male homosexuals and considered gay rights a ridiculous concept, though in the late 90s she correctly predicted that they would ultimately get the things they were agitating for. She was an interesting writer and made some very prescient statements about the direction the country was heading in. She was opposed to most modern trends but regardless of how she felt about them she had an unusually clear understanding of what was causing those trends and where they would lead. Was also an unreconstructed Southerner who regretted being too slutty and gay to be a proper Southern lady; though she didn't regret being slutty or gay, just that it disqualified her from being a true old fashioned belle. She hated kids and called Herod the Great of biblical fame "Good King Herod" for the mass killing of newborn boys he ordered in the New Testament. Famously wrote a column for National Review for many years called "The Misanthrope's Corner" in which she devoted most of her energy to insulting other Republicans for being weak and stupid.
All in all, she was an interesting and entertaining writer and you should definitely look into her if you want to read political and social commentary from the perspective of an insightful slutty lesbian reactionary who had a good track record for predicting political trends decades in advance.
>>428874
You might want to try Butler, J for starters.
Demonstrating that "women" isn't a continuous transhistorical category is far easier than, for example, explaining the roles of working class lesbians in Torydom in the 1980s.
>>428881
You might want to examine the fossil record
>>428885
People will be very interested in your paper on language. Chomsky level excited.
This whole thread is littered with no true lesbian fallacies.
>>428459
reducing men to sexual object
>>428907
People will be interested in your paper on sexual dimorphism. Nobel prize level excited. You must publish at once.
>>428959
Yeah, it gets tiring arguing this with people here. It's really weird having so many people insisting your orientation doesn't exist...
>>429691
>Lesbianism has solidly existed since the 1970s. Your attempts to universalise your sexuality are as despicable as the "heterosexual norm".
You cannot be this fucking dumb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho
>>429691
Check out a man attempting to define womens' identity and sexuality for them. Thank you sir for telling us about ourselves
>>431236
I'm sorry, madam, but claiming inhering ontological groundings for universal subjective identities is illegitimate. See if you can bridge the gap between ontological experience and the category of women. It is also pathetically racialist.
>>429734
Sappho was a post UN enlightenment individual whose sexuality was constructed in a sick inversion of proletarian wage-marriage in capitalism? News to me. I thought she fingered quim.
![autism[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/jfWXqfi.jpg "autism[1].png")