Literally none of this applies to anything I’ve said I’m so confused
A.) At no point did I ever say human sexuality isn’t shaped by material factors I said the opposite in my 1st comment
B.) Denying that the majority of medieval peasents were straight because “we just don’t know” is the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard, we just don’t know if they were gay either then. We do know that basically all of them had heterosexual relations tho…+ the concept of ‘homosocial’ is so stipud, you cannot in all seriousness tell me that you think your female friends are all maybe slightly gay for talking to you a lot
C.) Just straight up didn’t adress the point thst heterosexuality was the norm prior to the existence of patriarchy or class society lmao
D.) I’m not fully certain you know what idealism means
A) the majority of human beings experience some measure of attraction to both men and women, its just that one mode is so heavily reinforced that the other becomes completely unthinkable. unless one had absolutely zero attraction to the opposite sex, one simply repressed it. female sexuality was even more suppressed, or made invisible and female homosexuality doubly so. this is why victorians banned male homosexuality but mentioned nothing about female homosexuals, because women were not co sidered to have a sexuality at all. this is also why, as attitudes change, bisexuality is the fastest growing and largest cohort of lgbt self ide tification from generation to generation. similar to the oft quoted left handedness graph, this is not indicative of an actual increase in the amount of bisexuals but rather of a decrease in the number of bisexual reppers.
B.) were they all “straight” or did they live in a society that had normalised heterosexuality as part of what life was, much the same way that most of them were religious or lived within the boundaries of a country?
C.) as i mentioned, pattiarchy’s method of property control is very successful and thus by the stsrt of recorded history it was widespread. moreover as patriarchal societies became dominant, they were the ones who left behind records from which our understanding of their gender structures can be drawn. im not sure what you mean by class society here, but certainly feudalism and prefeusalism were both patriarchal. neither of them are presocial though, the same material causes that make patriarchy a part of the labour exploitation mechanism in capitalism were present back then.
D.) don’t be rude, you know very well what i mean. ideals, like country, nation, the nuclear family, natural justice, the course of history, endless progress etc.
Ok for one, that isn’t what idealism means. Idealism is the idea that the world is governed by ideas and mental constructs rather than material relations. Its the opposite of marxs material conception of history which states that the world is governed by material conditions and the mode of production
For 2, just because number of bisexuals are increasing does not mean that the majority of people are bisexual, that’s a logical leap which would win the long jump and is an insane claim to make about literally the majority of the human population contrary to any evidence lol
For 3, and your evidence for this is… I get saying some were comphet but saying most are is an extordinary claim and one you’re making without literally any evidence
For 4, class society and patriarchy rose alongside the rise of agriculture and didn’t exist in prehistory. Yes obviously feudalism and slave societies were class societies. But why is it that all archiological evidence from prehistory, which predates both class society and patriarchy, indicates heterosexuality as a norm? Why do we often find men and women buried together but very very rarely find men and men are women and women? Why do what we know about social structures from then also indicate heterosexuality as a norm?
2, 3) ive accepted that we wont agree on this but again, the theory of comphet was introduced by an essay which argues this, its not my personal theory that i came up with.
we both know a history major, we should both be aware of what is involved in historical interpretation and how that is affected by the historian’s own biases and preassumptions. they find a man and a woman in a grave together? must be a marriage! they find a man buried with several women all of them including him wearing the same clothes and hewelry? must be a chief buried with his many wives! two men buried embracing? must be two brothers or two friends!
the thing is they might be right! but we dont actually know and neither did they, but they assumed a heteronormative lens.
look, even pre feudalist society had village chiefs. animals have pack leaders or dominant males/females. does that mean that human hierarchy is a natural and unchangeable aspect of society? is ressource hoarding something we just have to accept as natural because those who hoard resources have more power and control of society? just because they always have?
anyway i dont like arguing with you so im ending it here
Literally none of this applies to anything I’ve said I’m so confused
A.) At no point did I ever say human sexuality isn’t shaped by material factors I said the opposite in my 1st comment
B.) Denying that the majority of medieval peasents were straight because “we just don’t know” is the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard, we just don’t know if they were gay either then. We do know that basically all of them had heterosexual relations tho…+ the concept of ‘homosocial’ is so stipud, you cannot in all seriousness tell me that you think your female friends are all maybe slightly gay for talking to you a lot
C.) Just straight up didn’t adress the point thst heterosexuality was the norm prior to the existence of patriarchy or class society lmao
D.) I’m not fully certain you know what idealism means
A) the majority of human beings experience some measure of attraction to both men and women, its just that one mode is so heavily reinforced that the other becomes completely unthinkable. unless one had absolutely zero attraction to the opposite sex, one simply repressed it. female sexuality was even more suppressed, or made invisible and female homosexuality doubly so. this is why victorians banned male homosexuality but mentioned nothing about female homosexuals, because women were not co sidered to have a sexuality at all. this is also why, as attitudes change, bisexuality is the fastest growing and largest cohort of lgbt self ide tification from generation to generation. similar to the oft quoted left handedness graph, this is not indicative of an actual increase in the amount of bisexuals but rather of a decrease in the number of bisexual reppers.
B.) were they all “straight” or did they live in a society that had normalised heterosexuality as part of what life was, much the same way that most of them were religious or lived within the boundaries of a country?
C.) as i mentioned, pattiarchy’s method of property control is very successful and thus by the stsrt of recorded history it was widespread. moreover as patriarchal societies became dominant, they were the ones who left behind records from which our understanding of their gender structures can be drawn. im not sure what you mean by class society here, but certainly feudalism and prefeusalism were both patriarchal. neither of them are presocial though, the same material causes that make patriarchy a part of the labour exploitation mechanism in capitalism were present back then.
D.) don’t be rude, you know very well what i mean. ideals, like country, nation, the nuclear family, natural justice, the course of history, endless progress etc.
Ok for one, that isn’t what idealism means. Idealism is the idea that the world is governed by ideas and mental constructs rather than material relations. Its the opposite of marxs material conception of history which states that the world is governed by material conditions and the mode of production
For 2, just because number of bisexuals are increasing does not mean that the majority of people are bisexual, that’s a logical leap which would win the long jump and is an insane claim to make about literally the majority of the human population contrary to any evidence lol
For 3, and your evidence for this is… I get saying some were comphet but saying most are is an extordinary claim and one you’re making without literally any evidence
For 4, class society and patriarchy rose alongside the rise of agriculture and didn’t exist in prehistory. Yes obviously feudalism and slave societies were class societies. But why is it that all archiological evidence from prehistory, which predates both class society and patriarchy, indicates heterosexuality as a norm? Why do we often find men and women buried together but very very rarely find men and men are women and women? Why do what we know about social structures from then also indicate heterosexuality as a norm?
2, 3) ive accepted that we wont agree on this but again, the theory of comphet was introduced by an essay which argues this, its not my personal theory that i came up with.
the thing is they might be right! but we dont actually know and neither did they, but they assumed a heteronormative lens.
look, even pre feudalist society had village chiefs. animals have pack leaders or dominant males/females. does that mean that human hierarchy is a natural and unchangeable aspect of society? is ressource hoarding something we just have to accept as natural because those who hoard resources have more power and control of society? just because they always have?
anyway i dont like arguing with you so im ending it here
this happens so rarely that instances of it are genuinely famous
not necessarily true much of neothithic society was largely egalitarian
ok but you used it wrong and then defined it wrong when asked…
shush tomato