This might be of interest to people here ... my lectures in 18th Century British History this week are focusing on the topics of gender and sexuality. Yesterday, we discussed how homosexuality was treated in the 1700's. You can feel free to argue this, but I'm simply repeating what my professor told us - in condensed form, as this was a two hour lecture!
First, thoughts on the body were vastly different. At the time, it was still commonly believed that men and women had identical bodies (the "one body" theory) proven by men having nipples, women's sexual organs being called "inverted testicles", a miscarried fetus not appearing male/female, etc. Medicine still revolved around the body possessing four 'qualities' (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile) so there was no difference of treatment between men and women. It was believed that both partners had to enjoy sex for procreation to occur, but also that it was a natural occurrence and so there was no shame attached to masturbation.
With the discovery of sperm in 1672, ideas began to change. Because it was difficult to see a woman's eggs, it was believed that men possessed the "life spirit" needed for procreation. Attitudes toward sex changed, masturbation was a waste of this "life force", as was any sex not dedicated to procreation. Also, people now began to research the differences between men and women, and a "two body" theory evolved which had repercussions for women's status in society (but that is for another topic). What is important, is that between 1750-1800 the general perspective of gender and sex that we possess today clearly evolved.
At first, homosexuality was not
wrong, per se. It was simply an alternative masculinity. The character of the 'Libertine' in English theatre was representative of the man who was more sexually adventurous, etc, and was widely tolerated as no stigma existed to prevent homosexuals from gaining respect/etc. There were well known upper class homosexuals, such as the Earl of Rochester, who held power. And the view was, that power over other men was the same as power over women.
However, two Christian revival groups in London began to target prostitution, both hetero and homosexual. They targeted
Molly Houses, and their efforts were highly publicized. People began to view homosexuality as deviant and sinful, and it became a taboo subject. For example, cases were brought to courts of sodomidical rape (older men raping teenage boys) by parents. At the beginning of the century, when the trial was over there was no stigma attached to the boy. Near the end of the century, there was a 50% drop in the number of these cases brought to the attention of courts, as parents began to fear that involvement in such a case could ruin their son's future prospectives due to the stigma of homosexuality.
So basically, by this argument, homosexuality did not become a true 'sin' until the 1800's (for English/Western society, anyway), at the same time sex itself became a taboo subject. There was a fair amount of anti-masturbation literature condemning both sexes, along with a view that women were to not appear sexually needy (which is tied to a view that men were the life force of procreation, childbirth was a burden to women and thus sex could not be enjoyed, etc).
Some academic food for thought?
