Historical Inaccuracy: No Homosexuality in Medieval Europe

Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the realm of ¬†Fantasy Fandom is bound to come up against a most foul lot who would crusade for marginalisations and non-representation in fictional worlds based on myths of Medieval Europe. “HISTORICAL ACCURACY!” is what they would bellow shrilly, believing that they have triumphed with their superior yet concise reasoning. Yet they fail to perceive history’s lack of¬†frail folk whose ears are tipped and who often are caricature of the supposed supremacy of the supposed white race. Nor do they question the existence of terrible winged and scaled worms who vomit the element of fire: creatures which have not been proven to have lived in the Middle Ages.

The Concept of Fantasy is, however, not powerful enough to destroy this wretched enemy. It must be wielded with its twin, the Uncovering of Historical Lies, in order to strike the Dudebro Inquisition at its very foundation. For you see, the great irony is that their Historical Accuracy is inaccurate.

Now is where I drop the gimmick and say that this shall be the first post in an irregular series which tries to debunk myths about history. Specifically, history which is drawn upon by works in the fantasy genre. This one, as the title says, will be about homosexual attitudes and behaviour in Medieval Europe.

If there were no homosexuality back then, why would the Church have rules against it? Did they throw charges of sodomy at everyone they did not like without knowing what the word meant? Of course not. Homosexuality was heavily suppressed during the Middle Ages, but there’s a difference between that and total non-existence. It is possible to create a culture where a people who once normalises or glorifies homosexual acts would come to lose the ability of same-gender attraction. But to completely eradicate these impulses which are so natural that they are observed in about 1500 animal species? Impossible.

Continue reading

(Open discussion) What does it mean when fandoms routinely isolate systemic and institutional oppression from its analysis of a character or story?

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing any kind of analysis or critique of marginalized characters (particularly women of color) focus on why someone likes them or hates them, or why they’re good or bad.

Honestly, it’s so bland, and having had my community organizing goggles readjusted, I realize that it’s not nearly as important as how systemic and institutional oppression are reflected, reinforced, and/or subverted in the story.

I know that not everybody does that. Hell, even people I find to be usually on point seem to deflect or ignore this shit, especially when it comes to characters are sit on the intersections of marginalization (race and gender, disability and sexuality, etc.).

Continue reading