>>93442552>or get accused of being woke?Having gay characters exist is 'woke'. This happened to Mr. Birchum, a 'conservative' adult cartoon made by the Daily Wire. And the only reason they had a gay character in that show was to showcase that being conservative doesn't automatically make you homophobic (despite using the character to make stereotypical joke).
ANYWAY:
My pet peeve is when authors transplant modern social commentary on historical or fictional settings. Now- if it's a fictional setting where say Gay Marriage was legalized in the past decade, like in our world, I think it would be appropriate to have that sort of similarity. If it's say, Edwardian England, then fucking no you are defeating the whole point of setting in that era in the first place.
Historians have a saying- the past is like a foreign country. Not just with the gays but in general we need to be careful not to project our understanding of society onto it. People viewed things in different ways. For example- the Romans thought that you were gay only if you were on the bottom during sex, because it meant you wanted to have sex in 'the position of the woman' which was only because you secretly wanted to be a woman. Notably- the Romans didn't have the concept of consent. This means that if you are fucking a man, so long as you are on top you are straight.
As for the middle ages, the nobility mostly did whatever it wanted, but you didn't want to show off that you had a gay lover (unless you were the Emperor of China who did, but the Emperor gets to do whatever the fuck he wants). Gay trysts were accepted on the downlow, though still viewed as licentious activity (as was all sex that wasn't done purely for the sake of procreation, in the dark, with your wife, holding hands), but so long as you sired an heir to keep the bloodline going you were fine.
(cont.)