37
Yeah, anyway, fuck straightwashing lol
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)
GayBros
1249 readers
57 users here now
By GayBros, for GayBros. Almost everything is allowed.
Rules:
- Remember the human.
- We are all bros here;
- Posts with NSFW images are NOT allowed: This is not a porn community.
You can find other communities/instances in https://lemmyverse.net/.
If you want a porn related community, check out /c/[email protected]. Their sidebar also has other nsfw communities. If you want to see NSFW content, you have to go to your account settings and enable the option to see NSFW content.
Logo design credit goes to @[email protected]
Banner design credit goes to @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You say he would consider himself male. If you mean "male as defined during his time period", sure. But they didn't have the term bisexual then, so in that case, I don't see how your point makes sense.
If you think he'd identify as male using today's standards, then we can make the same assumption about today's standards for bisexual. He might very simply have looked at the term and said "yup, I like doing men and women". There's no reason to assume he wouldn't.
Of course he would consider himself to be male by the standard of his day. So what? He was a man because that is how he understood himself to be and this is a social role he held.
Why does it matter what he would have believed if he travelled through time and saw our society if he didn't? He had a radically different conceptualisation of sexuality, so who cares what would happen if he was presented with ours? But I doubt he would identify as bisexual anyway.
Whether or not he was bisexual depends on what bisexuality is. If it is an immutable trait of character that people are born with or otherwise can't change you can probably say he was bi, but I would say this is an incorrect understanding of sexiality.
But if bisexuality is a way that a person relates to society and himself and also a conceptual tool for understanding sexuality. The former meaning forbids assigning this label to Alexander, as this is not the way he would understand himself, nor is it accurately reflecting his social role, as the social role of "bisexual" did not exist yet. You are imposing our social categories and conceptual frameworks on people that existed in completely different social structures and understood themselves completely differently.
Feel free to offer your own account of what it is.