Leonardo DiCaprio as Leonardo da Vinci - Get ready for the next de-gayed Hollywood blockbuster!

[quote] as renaissance homosexual

There's no conclusive evidence that he was gay. He might have been - or he could have been smthg else.

If we find a letter where da Vinci says he loves sex with men, and only men - then we can classify him as a "renaissance homosexual".

R1 Does this look like a drawing a straight man would make to you?

r1 Phew, thank God. Thinking there could have been a famous, important gay really worried me; thanks for clearing that up.

R1 It's history, dear, not the past. Nobody really knows what happend 600 years ago. History is a method of organizing the past. We will never know how many records of gay people were destroyed and lost. What we do know is that even in the 80s the US government banned research that showed homosexual behavior in killer wales. Imagine what has been destroyed over centuries.

I have always disliked him (DiCaprio, not da Vinci).

Yes, R2, the painter (and subject) of the painting below are gay too. "Oh, look what a gay pose Louis XIV is striking! Seductively & daintily revealing his legs in sexy, ballet-like tights. Both he and the painter MUST be gay!".

And all the noble men of past centuries were ALL gay too. They all wore high heels, used makeup & rouge, wore long woman-like wigs and 'flaming' clothing, wrote over-sentimental letters to everyone with "Kisses" at the end. Until modern times, it was often fashionable for men to dress and act like effeminate dandies. So the conclusion is: they were ALL gay.

He got his Oscar - can't he go away now?

Oh please, r1/r6. There's as much evidence as can reasonably be expected to survive that Da Vinci was gay. In all his anatomical research and writings he couldn't even bring himself to describe female genitalia, but he had no problem with naked men, as the picture at r2's link demonstrates.

Next you'll be claiming Michelangelo was straight as an arrow too.

But in fairness, OP, Da Vinci does seem to have been an incredibly uptight Asperger's-type individual, so it's perfectly plausible NOT top show him having sex with anyone in a biopic.

Casting DiCaprio, however, is totally implausible.

^ not to show

(talk about a Freudian slip)

When would he have had time for sex let alone relationships?

Seems like he was what we call asexual.

[quote] Thinking there could have been a famous, important gay really worried me

With or without him, there are plenty of other “famous, important” gay people, R3. It’s not like the gay community lives and dies only based on da Vinci’s speculative sexuality.

Da Vinci didn't seem to write anything in his diaries to suggest he wanted to have sex with men. So everything else is just second-hand speculation.

There's no point labelling him this or that based on how he described genitalia, R8. There were plenty of straight women back then who were irrationally afraid of the "penis" (and didn't dare look at it, draw it or describe it). That doesn't automatically make those women gay either - it suggests they were probably prudes.

Gay and straight are modern concepts.

God r1 is an idiot. When studying history you can only infer things based on the evidence you have in light of our understanding of the times.

Obviously there isn't a letter where Da Vinci would write "I am a flaming queen who loves cock!!!!", but most historians agree that Da Vinci was gay. Looking at what we know that makes the most sense.

There's no need for name-calling, R13. If you think people are "idiots" for not blindly believing someone else's speculative assumptions - then that's your problem.

[quote] most historians agree that Da Vinci was gay

Um, no. "Oxford University’s Rawlings says, “there’s no way of knowing Leonardo’s sexual orientation for sure,” and that “scholars’ OPINIONS on the issue fall along a spectrum between ‘maybe’ and ‘very probably.’”

There's a big difference between you stating unquestionably that "da Vinci was gay", and historians saying he was "maybe" gay.

In the book on Fred and Adele Astaire Adele is quoted as saying George Gershwin was neither heterosexual nor homosexual(the Astaires knew him very well. Adele was known to be quite randy.) He just wasn't a sexual being. And any romantic talk about his life is pure speculation. He was not known to have love affairs. Whatever Kitty Carlisle says I'm sure at best they were good friends.

Yet he was a great composer and speaks to most people with great passion and god knows his music can be filled with romantic and sexual longing.

Without any proof does DaVinci need to be labeled?

Da Vinci was the first sexually fluid person

Jesus, r1/r6/r14, what is your obsession with Da Vinci NOT being gay? It can't be because he's an ancestor of yours, since he obviously didn't father any children.

FWIW, as a European history major, I can assure you that when historians say their "OPINIONS on the issue (of his gayness) fall along a spectrum between ‘maybe’ and ‘very probably' ", what they mean is, "he was gayer than a pair of Liberace's sequined hot pants, but since we don't have physical evidence to prove it, we won't expose ourselves to academic criticism by stating that".

[quote]I can assure you that when historians say their "OPINIONS on the issue (of his gayness) fall along a spectrum between ‘maybe’ and ‘very probably' ", what they mean is, "he was gayer than a pair of Liberace's sequined hot pants, but since we don't have physical evidence to prove it, we won't expose ourselves to academic criticism by stating that".

Exactly. Obviously they fall short of making declarative statements because as an honest academic you can't do that, but yes, they think he is gay.

R17, no need to hysterically call another poster's arguments as an "obsession". No one is saying he can't be gay. People are objectively pointing out that no one knows for sure. As opposed to other posters here who simplistically declare, as if it were an absolute FACT, that he's gay. It's not factually proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so let it go.

Oh, but as you're some college history major on an anonymous forum (not even a professional historian with peer-supported credentials) - I will of course defer to your opinion.

Yes, Da Vinci was pussyhood, ravishing the countryside left and right. He had dozens and dozens of illegitimate children all across Italy. He was a real badass heterosexual.

I wouldn’t want people later to label me as a pussy breeder just because I drew suggestive drawings of naked women for my art class. Or because I don’t lead a public, sexual life. Or because I shared a house with a female housemate. Or because I often write “I love you” to my best female friend on Facebook.

Wow, yes, I am a pussy-hound then! Who knew!

[quote]I have always disliked him (DiCaprio, not da Vinci).

Ah, see it's always been da Vinci I've disliked. What an asshole.

DaVinci was a big pussyhound and Machiavelli supporter.

[quote]DaVinci was a big pussyhound and Machiavelli supporter.

We're gonna make Florence great again!

[quote] [historians] fall short of making declarative statements because as an honest academic you can't do that, but yes, they think he is gay.

It’s unprofessional to put words into historians’ mouths. The historians that say he “maybe” was gay don’t necessarily, unquestioningly “think he is gay”. Being objective, and lacking any clear evidence of his sexual proclivities, they state it fairly – it’s within the realm of possibility that he might have been gay. "Maybe" connotes possibility. So "maybe” he was gay, “maybe” he wasn’t gay.

R25 I think most historians feel the argument for his being gay is stronger than the one that he wasn't.

But he really seems to have been a practicing asexual, if that expression makes any sense. And the sodomy accusation seems to have really put him off the ideal of sex with another man.

idea, not ideal, lol

[quote] And the sodomy accusation seems to have really put him off the ideal of sex with another man.

And how do we know that accusation put him off anything?

It appears he was cleared of that accusation too.

^Or that he had that idea in the first place?

Leonardo was born to play Leonardo. I smell an Oscar..

Dicaprio will ruin yet another movie.

Some of us were not born yesterday, Divinci and Decaprio were and are gay.

I hope I can get cast in this movie so we can have another gay sex scene.

DiCaprio will ruin this.

Leo is a very overrated actor. Even in his "oscar-winning" role the Revenant, Tom Hardy so easily out-acted him it was laughable.

[quote]What we do know is that even in the 80s the US government banned research that showed homosexual behavior in killer wales.

Well this is a new one for me.

How largth ith hith thcock?

[quote]homosexual behavior in killer wales.

Wait. What?

Since we all agree DiCaprio is overrated, who is he sucking or pandering his ass to in order to get roles? He must give the best blow job in Hollywood, with all the roles he's gotten. It's a wonder his face hasn't gotten stuck in blow face.

Who knew Welsh murderers were gay? This is news to me.

Pedantic homophobes are exhausting and boring.

Bryan Cranston should've won the Oscar that year for his brilliant performance in "Trumbo," instead of Leo. If you watch Cranston in Trumbo, there is no question who really deserved the Oscar.

Thank you, R12. What does it mean to be "Gay?' As an identity centered around same-sex desire, homosexuality is a modern concept, first coined in 1879 (?), according to Foucault. DaVinci and his contemporaries would have no idea what gay means.

On the other hand, there is evidence that people in early modern Europe people did recognize that certain men were attractive exclusively to other men and had sex with them, so the concept of an identity may have been present in the 15th/16th/17th centuries.

Same sex acts were considered "sodomy." Sodomy also enveloped a plethora of other sins: rape, regicide, patricide, atheism.

According to Alan Bray, homosexual acts were "unrecognized" in early modern England, since they represented something so alien and repugnant to the social order. So largely was it deemed destructive, that it existed around society's ignorance of it.

Didd DaVinci have sexual relations with men? I don't know. In 1476 he was charged with sodomy along with two others, but the charges were dropped. There is speculation that one of the others had a powerful patron that led to the case's dismissal. Freud believed that there was a connection between DaVinci's creativity and his sexuality. In the absence of a smoking gun, we'll never know.

Some of Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a young man. James VI/I had male favorites. Courtiers recognized the king's penchant for attractive, young men and used that knowledge to their benefit. James condemned sodomy in his writings as an unforgivable crime. He demanded that the author of a anonymous libel that accused him of sexual relations with his male favorites be found and punished.

Did James have sex with them? Historians are still divided.

The creative output of Renaissance Italy celebrated male and female beauty. Looking at some of his work, I often wonder how Leonardo could not be gay!

[quote] Looking at some of his work, I often wonder how Leonardo could not be gay!

And looking at some of Michelangelo's work, one often wonders how he could not be straight / bisexual. He molded his female statues in openly sexual, suggestively post-orgasmic, legs-apart poses. Even down to the sexual detail of the female pubic mound!

And he even put that in a church! lol

Except that all Michelangelo's women look like men, r44, especially when you ignore the bolted-on breasts that are spread way too far apart for him ever to have spent time with a real naked woman.

And then of course there's work like this, which is just a wee bit homoerotic, no?

And just look at this celebration of eternal femininity! Yep, that Michelangelo must have been a major pussyhound.

The woman in R44 does not look like a man - curvy / fat thighs, arms and belly. The female public area is not covered up either and on full display.

It's ridiculous to base sexuality solely on one's art. Ang Lee who directed "Brokeback Mountain", Annie Proulx who wrote it, Heath Ledger who starred in it - none of them are gay, yet they created a gay work of art.

And what about men who sexually prefer, and have sex with, muscular females trainers, bulky Olympic female athletes and medal winners - yes, all those men MUST be gay too.

Just wait till,they,find the sex scroll!

Gaugin's women looked like no-tits, big-armed dudes.

If it wasn't for the earring and hair flower, I'd call this a man.

That's Marcel, his hairdresser

^That's "Woman Holding a Fruit", 1893.

Early 20th C painter Samokhvalov liked painting athletic women, bulked up like Wonder Woman.

The only thing suggesting this is a woman are the flowers, lipstick and barely-there tits.

He definitely had a type.

Michelangelo sculpted women's breast like he never had never seen any. It looks like if he added apples on the chest.

Now, as opposed to many here, I do love DiCaprio, but I think this is a bad idea. Even if DaVinci's life is fascinating, it wouldn't make a good movie. A movie couldn't do it justice. A tv series, maybe.

Leo should do something different than a biopic, I know he can do it.

R36, haven't you ever watched "The Undersea World of Jean Cocteau" on PBS?

R44 really does look like a woman who's been working out at the gym but is still having trouble with her diet or doesn't give a fuck. Definitely not a muscled bulked up male.

The far apart breasts are a bit odd though. But then the male dicks are all teeny tiny. Granted they exist, but on every guy?

Does this relate to the probability that in those times, in that age, men, often one of the painter's apprentices, were primarily the models?

Michelangelo got the area leading to the 'mussy' on his female sculpture right though! lol

The idea that he never saw boobs in some form is unlikely. Even in the hypothetical scenario that he never saw a topless female in his life (or a clothed female sporting revealing décolletage), there are literally thousands of other famous female nude statues all around Italy (existing from Roman times). He would have definitely seen them everywhere and studied those sculptures as a young artist, and would have definitely known what boobs look like.

Perhaps it was a conscious stylistic choice, like when he sculpted disproportionately small penises. Or perhaps he was a novice boob sculptor, making errors (which in stone are hard to correct). Just like there are bad boob surgeons. Like the guy who gave Victoria Beckham this weird, bolted-on monstrosity:

If they were smart they were queer, and if they were stupid, they were straight!

Turns out, I'm straight!

Whether gay or not (and I believe he was), da Vinci should not be played by a hack. Leo is too old and used up looking. I've always imagined da Vinci, based on his sketches, as a beautiful man who kept himself in good shape and was an avowed vegetarian.

DiCaprio played a very gay Paul Verlaine in Total Eclipse, I don't think he'd shy away from it here.

How many straight men in the Renaissance were accused of sodomy and had coincidentally a preference to draw EROTIC images of naked men?

This reminds me of the case of Abraham Lincon and Freud, it is well know that Frued had a boyfriend to whom he wrote erotic letters telling him that he wanted to feel his strong thighs, but wait there is no proof that he was into guys.

Another case is the cuban idol Jose Marti who is regarded as a womanizer yet he wrote a letter to his best friend who was married telling him" loving women is good, but loving men is better", yet we are supposed to think that this guy had no interest in men. People who want to twist the facts often claim that it was normal for men in those times to write affectionate letters to their best friends but real historians know that this was not the case.

He was accused of sodomy, but cleared. If he was convicted, then it would be another story.

The slur "sodomite" back then sounds similar to the slur "fag" recently - often used against all types of guys, including non-conforming nerds / intellectuals too.

"loving women is good, but loving men is better" = could be a bisexual confession, or could be a classic "bros before hoes". Without more detailed context, it's impossible to tell.

R64 you are a woman, you clearly don't know a fuck about what is like to be a male in a heteronormative society.

da Vinci was not a carb face with a girly voice. He was probably uncut too. He also had a very early "memory" of being in his cradle when a vulture perched on the edge, and tapped its tail on his mouth. Hmmmm.

I think you meant 'gay male' R65. She still wouldn't know.

[quote] you clearly don't know a fuck about what is like to be a male in a heteronormative society.

R65 / R67 apparently know exactly, and better than anyone else, what it was like living in a foreign country (Italy, or Italian mini-states as they then were) in a foreign time (15th-16th century). That would make both of you 500 year-old Italians. Wow, imagine that!

For all his wealth and fame, da Vinci was never linked romantically with a woman. He did, however, live for years with a beautiful young servant and “assistant” named Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, whom da Vinci nicknamed the “little devil.” Gian Giacomo's primary talent, apparently, was spending huge sums of da Vinci’s money. Da Vinci left him the Mona Lisa.

Any pics of the cutie?

[quote] draw EROTIC images of naked men

Rodin made some very erotic male nudes as well. Does that mean he was bisexual?

Leonardo was and is a homosexual.

Every role Di Caprio has chosen in the past 20 years was with an eye to winning an Oscar. Enough with the Oscar bait. Go away.

There better be a ton of gay sex.

R69, Gian Giacomo moved into da Vinci's household when he was a prepubescent boy of TEN years old. Da Vinci then was nearly 40 years old. If there was a romantic / sexual relationship at that early stage, that would not be a gay one, it would have a VERY different name. Let's not go there.

Tsk! Tsk! R62, that was Rimbaud.

Verlaine was played by David Thewlis.

For the record, I always visualise Da Vinci as a wise old man with a white beard (not like that), even as a young man !

DiCaprio has his name attached to MANY projects, doesn't mean they will all be realised.. .

Da Vinci was stunningly handsome as a young man, according to accounts of his contemporaries.

[quote] Leonardo was and is a homosexual.

You mean DiCaprio? Quite possibly.

Da Vinci is long dead, so the present verb tense doesn't apply to him.

As has been mentioned on other Dicaprio threads, two men in their 40s (Leo and Lukas Haas) who have lived together for more than two decades, travel everywhere together, are constantly in each others company and have never married a woman or sired children are not usually thought of as being heterosexual.

It's funny that they same view does not usually apply to female spinsters. They don't marry, no children and usually get a close female friend for company, to ward off loneliness. I'm genuinely curious if the famous suffragette and spinster Susan B. Anthony was a lesbian.

[quote] Anthony lived for many of her adult years with her sister Mary. Women (and men) wrote in more romantic terms of friendships than we do today, so when Susan B. Anthony, in a letter, wrote that she “shall go to Chicago and visit my new lover -- dear Mrs. Gross” it’s hard to know what she really meant.

Two women who lived together back then (and even today) could be seen as spinsters (even if they were closeted lesbians) who lived together for companionship and to share expenses, without raising eyebrows. Two men who live(d) together past a certain age would (and will) always be a subject of gossip and speculation regarding their sexuality.

It's always been much less common for two straight men to live together as roommates past a certain age than it has always been for straight women.

R79 are you stupid????? Or trolling!!!!! Men and women are not treated the same by society,that is why men must constantly prove their manhood.

"Two men,who live together past a certain age..."

They're ECONOMIZING. We know that's why Cary Grant and Randolph Scott lived together. On their measly Hollywood star salaries, they couldn't afford for each to have his own place. I thought they made that plain in all their interviews for Photoplay.

"Gian Giacomo's primary talent...was spending huge sums of da Vinci's money."

I'm guessing that his primary talent lay elsewhere.

I still cannot believe we have at least one troll here on DL, of all places, who's trying to "in" Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

I mean, seriously? There are many historical (and contemporary) figures whose sexuality is genuinely hard to figure out and therefore worthy of debate, but these two are not among them.

[quote] Men and women are not treated the same by society,that is why men must constantly prove their manhood.

Yes, dear R81. A man who is unmarried and traveling with a male friend past a certain age are often considered by some societies as gay or a "committed bachelor". A woman who is unmarried with a female travel companion past a certain age are often considered sexless, frigid females who were 'unwanted by any man' (even if they're unmarried by personal choice) and past their 'sell-by date' for marriage and child-bearing.

That's why society gives them pejoratives names: 'old maid' or 'spinster' = "an unmarried woman, typically an older woman beyond the usual age for marriage." People often see these women as pathetic, lost causes who failed to perform their main biological purpose in life.

^*is often

R84, that grievance should really be addressed not to DL, but to Oxford University's Rawlins: "there’s no way of knowing Leonardo’s sexual orientation for sure”. Those artists were people who lived [bold]half a millennia ago[/bold], in a far-away country, it would be hubris for us to say we magically understand everything about them, as if they were our modern contemporaries.

The real question is - do we really want to have an associative link with da Vinci, whose closest life relationship was with a 10-year old when they met? Potential pederasty should never be confused with homosexuality.

Why would a straight man draw pictures of naked men with plump and hard erected dicks?? People in the middle ages where the same as we are today, any straight man would have freaked out if another man had an interest to see him naked with an erection, specially to avoid rumors, which also existed back then.

He was never linked romantically with a woman.

By the same token, Tom Ford chose images of female sex regions for his perfume.

There's a lot of graffiti of erect cocks and balls across cities - those graffiti are not necessarily indicative of their authors' sexual orientation.

People can be kinky about choosing to depict sex organs, without having any sexual interest in them.

[quote] He was never linked romantically or sexually with either woman or man.

Fixed that for you.

How smug of you r92. It's pretty much accepted that Da Vinci was what we would now call homosexual. The debate is if he was sexually active or celibate. Nobody really knows for sure.

R93, it's actually smug to label a dead person as anything (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, pedophile) based on no conclusive evidence. It's "pretty much accepted" that it's a grey area with Da Vinci.

It's not a grey area with Da Vinci, according to scholars.

This was already discussed up-thread. Scholars say "there's no way of knowing for sure". No need to label and pigeon-hole long-deceased people based on pure speculation, without solid evidence. We can just enjoy their art.

But if you insist on slapping a rigid modern-day label on him - what is your evidence that he was homosexual and not a pedophile?

You're right, r96. There is no evidence that Da Vinci was not a pedophile.

But his artistic and scientific work does not suggest a fascination with children.

It does, however, suggest a fascination with men's bodies.

But of course you can cling to your "reasonable doubt" about his sexuality -- in which you're so invested that you've made 30 (!) posts on this thread about it so far (yes, I counted).

He's the cupcake/copy and paste troll. Just put him on ignore like everybody else does.

"The Incarnate Angel" - copy after a lost Leonardo drawing ad based on the "St. John the Baptist" in the Louvre.

"The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions." - Leonardo notebook

Leo and Kate Winslet are finally dating and in a real relationship say the tabloids. Now THAT is good gossip.

It was the most erotic moment of my life....

Wops are crackers and crackers are an oppressor class.

[quote]When would he have had time for sex let alone relationships?

This.

Clearly, he was focused on his career and had no time for relationships of any kind.

Leonardo da Vinci just never met Miss Right! Sadly, Leonardo Di Caprio hasn't either! But we KNOW she's out there! Keep believin' fangurls!

[quote]It does, however, suggest a fascination with men's bodies.

The lack of knowledge here about renaissance art, sexuality, Italian culture, etc...etc...is funny.

One thing worth knowing is that man-on-man sex was so common, so much a part of every man's life in Florence in that era that the word "Florentine" was slang for homosexual in German: " Fiorenzen"

Who knows, DaVinci may have preferred men over women but you also have to understand the context of the times.

The only quote from da Vinci regarding sex: "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions.”

Claiming Da Vinci is heterosexual is rooted in homophobia.

So how much did Gian Giacomo get when he put the Mona Lisa up for auction on ebay?

[quote]Leonardo DiCaprio as Leonardo da Vinci

At least he won't have to learn a new name for this one.

As long as they keep things on a first name basis.

After reading up on Gian and studying his work, it appears to me he was abused sexually from a young age.

This seems to have messed him up pretty badly mentally and emotionally so much that he abused his own body (very common with sexual abuse victims) up until his death.

Whether it was Leonardo himself who abused him I'll leave unsaid.

^^^ Here come the sexual molestation = messed up homosexuality people.

I've blocked so many of them and yet here they still come.

What are you even talking about R112? Who had "messed up homosexuality"?

Lukas Haas IS Gian Giacomo!

[quote] "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions.”

That short passage raises more questions than it answers. Did he have an overly-religious upbringing where sex was portrayed to him in a fear-inspiring way as 'necessary, but disgusting'? Did he have a bad first experience (like some people do) and was venting his frustration with how it went? Was it all a temporary, passing thought; an angry philosophical rant; or a lifelong conviction? If it were a lifelong conviction, why didn’t he write more about it ever again, or elaborate on it beyond just a sentence?

In that passage, he does not say anything positive about men and their sex either, or even mention men at all.

Many people even today say sex is “dirty”, “meaningless”, “disgusting”. If taken out of context, that can easily be misperceived as a rejection of sex, but they can be just venting or brainwashed by their conservative education.

[quote] his artistic and scientific work does not suggest a fascination with children. It does, however, suggest a fascination with men's bodies.

Da Vinci was a professional painter and sculptor who made (among other things) male nude drawings and statues – that’s what painters and sculptors do.

If da Vinci had made private sketches of male-on-male fellatio and male-on-male sex – that would have been a different story.

Georgia O’Keeffe made painting after painting reminiscent of the female sex organ – that does not suggest she was automatically lesbian.

Da Vinci was also foremost a scientist. He was fascinated by scientific anatomy in general. He drew sketches of human body parts, including the brain, the heart, and baby fetuses inside the womb.

Under 15th-16th century morals, society women were not allowed to disrobe and pose nude for men, including da Vinci (unless they were prostitutes). So da Vinci obviously had to model his anatomical paintings on men and male corpses (for brains, intestines, etc).

As for da Vinci’s possible pederasty theory, his paintings are not proof of whether he was one or not. Sandusky did not draw sketches of underage people, yet still managed to be a pedophile in his private life.

According to known records, da Vinci never had a close romantic relationship with a male adult or female adult. He did, however, have an unusually close relationship with a 10-year old. Make of that what you will.

He was just interested in the kid's mind. Gian Giacomo was a child prodigy. Leo was studying him.

R113 is blocked.

r118 nobody gives a shit who you block.

Oh fuck off, r1, you silly cunt. Leonardo had male lovers, he drew the male anatomy with the same delicious attention to detail as that other Renaissance homo, Michelangelo, and there was never any mention of women in his life.

You need to go back in a time machine and catch him fellating one of his apprentices, hunty?

This is Hollywood, so they'll probably add a plotline where he falls in love with an adorable pizza waitress played by Jennifer Aniston

Who works at a pizzeria where they put chicken, pasta and pineapple on their pizza.

And he'll devise a pizza-making machine that will revolutionize the industry and double as a proto flying machine.

After that terrible J. Edgar movie, one would think Leo would eschew biopics.

And after The Aviator.

[quote] Oh fuck off, [R1], you silly cunt.

Oh dear, R120 is triggered and angry.

[quote] Leonardo had male lovers

Such as? Please name all his ‘male lovers’ and how you know this so well.

[quote] he drew the male anatomy with the same delicious attention to detail

Da Vinci also made “deliciously” detailed sketches of the uterus and the womb.

And he liked dissecting corpses too. By his own admission, he cut into [bold]30 corpses[/bold]! He was particularly obsessed with a cadaver of a very old man (“del vechio”).

Applying your simplistic logic, R120, that would make him a necrophile who was into old people. It’s a fallacy to equate da Vinci’s various work interests with his personal life.

In the interest of reasoned discussion, I'd like to point out that the poster at r126 is responsible for a third of the total responses on this thread (and 100% of the shrieking "He wasn't gay if you can't prove it!" posts).

This poster is clearly some combination of trolling/ homophobic/ morbidly obsessed with the sexuality of a long-dead genius/ unspecified crazy, so engage with him at your own risk.

He pops up in a number of threads, copying and pasting away.

The "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen" line doesn't work.

So pointing out that we don’t fully know someone’s undeclared sexuality is “homophobic”, R127? Wow, good to know. Tone down the militant paranoia a notch.

And thanks for ‘policing’ my posts. Rather than stalking and counting them like this is a remedial math class, I suggest you actually read them and try to understand their content. In each post a new point was made – Rodin made homoerotic statues. O’Keefe made homoerotic paintings. Etc.

You also seem to lack reading comprehension. No one said that 100% he “wasn’t gay”, and no one is trying to “in” da Vinci. I specifically wrote that it’s “within the realm of possibility that he might have been gay”; “maybe he was gay, maybe he wasn’t”. If that’s too complex a thought for you to process or remember, then that’s your problem.

[quote] that other Renaissance homo, Michelangelo

With Michelangelo things get a bid darker. Was he gay? Quite possibly. Or was he not gay, but a pedophile / ephebophile? Even more likely.

At the age of nearly 60, Michelangelo painted “The Rape of Ganymede”. As an old man, he apparently loved that myth and quoted it admiringly to close friends. It’s a Greek myth about Zeus (and older man) kidnapping an adolescent boy from his parents to be Zeus’ ‘cup-bearer’. In ancient languages, the words “abduction” and “rape” were often linked, because one usually followed the other.

“The Ganymede myth was a model for the Greek social custom of paiderastía, the erotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. The Latin form of the name was Catamitus (and also "Ganymedes"), from which the English word "catamite" is derived.”

The dangerous North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) therefore gleefully lists Michelangelo as a supporter of their ‘cause’.

It’s a painful exercise to try to understand the sexuality and complex morals of old men from the 16th Century. Out of respect for their talent, everyone tries to avoid discussion of their potential pederasty. Because if we start analyzing their private sex lives and beliefs, and have to confront disconcerting facts like above suggesting they could be pederasts, everyone would feel guilt and unease when admiring their art.

[quote]It’s a painful exercise to try to understand the sexuality and complex morals of old men from the 16th Century. Out of respect for their talent, everyone tries to avoid discussion of their potential pederasty.

First of all, there was no age of consent. And you might want to study Mediterranean cultures in general on this subject. Also: the tradition of the "maestro" and his "allievo".

You are all seem to think that USA 2017 = Florence Italy 1500.

There was an age of socially acceptable sexual maturity, and it depended on each nation’s own custom. Even in the 1500s, if someone forced sex on a 5-year old, people would consider that unacceptable. ‘Consent’ was not always required, that’s true.

When Michelangelo was an [bold]old man of 66[/bold], he had a (possibly sexual) relationship with a [bold]13-year old[/bold] - Francesco de Zanobi Bracci, nicknamed Cecchino. The boy died 2 years later, and Michelangelo composed 54 lines of poetry about him for his tomb.

From another source: “In a letter to the boy’s uncle, [bold]Michelangelo speaks of the young boy as "the flame who consumes me"[/bold]. He relates a dream in which the boy "mocked my senile love," but possibly alludes to a physical consummation: "My love has ratified the agreement which I made of myself to him."

The most explicit part is a quatrain for the young boy’s tomb: […] “Do yet attest for him [bold]how gracious I was in bed / When he embraced[/bold] [...].”

In the above inscription, Michelangelo appears to make an allusion to their common bed with the very young, barely pubescent Cecchino. This poetry was accompanied by a note advising the boy’s uncle to burn the last two lines "in the fire without witness" and to substitute more abstract lines.

When Michelangelo learned that the young boy’s uncle planned to publish all of the epitaphs unaltered, he begged him to destroy the prints, writing "You certainly have the power to disgrace me." The uncle relented, but their friendship ended.”

Based on the above, it’s possible Michelangelo and the boy’s uncle were pedophile friends, given their level of confidential honesty with each other, and the uncle was pimping out his 13-year old nephew to Michelangelo.

I don't know how the movie will play it, but according to the Amazon description of the Isaacson book:

Leonardo’s delight at combining diverse passions remains the ultimate recipe for creativity. So, too, does his ease at being a bit of a misfit: illegitimate, [bold]gay[/bold], vegetarian, left-handed, easily distracted, and at times heretical. His life should remind us of the importance of instilling, both in ourselves and our children, not just received knowledge but a willingness to question it—to be imaginative and, like talented misfits and rebels in any era, to think different.

[quote] His life should remind us of the importance of […] not just received knowledge but a willingness to question it.

Well, to be fair, that’s exactly what we’re doing here – questioning his sexuality, and not just imposing rigid labels.

All signs point to da Vinci being a homo. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In rural Spain and Italy most girls got married at the age of 14 or 15, at that age they where considered senoritas and ready to marry. So, back then they did not have the concept of pederasty as we have them today.

A folio by Leonardo includes a page of drawings by a hand other than Leonardo's, one of which is a crudely drawn sketch depicting an anus, identified as "Salaì's bum", pursued by penises on legs.

Well, he never sucked MY cock, darling…!

[quote]When Michelangelo was an old man of 66, he had a (possibly sexual) relationship with a 13-year old - Francesco de Zanobi Bracci, nicknamed Cecchino. The boy died 2 years later, and Michelangelo composed 54 lines of poetry about him for his tomb.

Boys were substitutes for women. Still happens in some cultures.

You're all way too entrenched in modern American standards to understand anything different.

You're right, r140.

Homosexuality didn't exist before modern American culture invented it. They just didn't have enough women in those days!

R141They just didn't have enough women in those days!

Yes, exactly.

Again, you're equating modern life (and a woman's role in it) with a completely different culture 500 years ago.

Yeah, just keep digging that hole deeper, r142 (and 140/135/132... etc. – and that’s just since you cleared your cookies from upthread)...

Want another shovel? Yours must be wearing out.

Cleared my cookies? What on earth are you talking about?

(The idiot will next be accusing me of being Russian)

[quote] In rural Spain and Italy most girls got married at the age of 14 or 15 [...] So, back then they did not have the concept of pederasty as we have them today.

Old societies didn't recognize a lot of human rights in the 15th-16th century - that doesn't mean that those socially back-ward societies were morally right. They had forced marriage. They generally didn't prosecute rape and physical abuse / battery within marriage. Depending on the region, slavery was ok.

A pederast is often still a pederast, irrespective of the time. We can think flexibly about specific age for sexual maturity (16-18), but there's no doubt that 10-13 is biologically too young, especially if there's a 53-year(!) age difference with their partner (like in Michelangelo's case).

Moreover, pederasty involving young boys in Italy at that time was not openly socially accepted. Remember, we’re talking about Catholic Christian Italy, not ancient Greece. That’s why Michelangelo was freaking out that someone might found out that he (possibly) had sex with a 13-year-old boy.

Generally, human biology hasn't changed that much - a very young teenager is often mentally and physically not prepared for sex with a full-grown adult, especially if the sex / molestation is forced upon him/her. But back then kids of both sexes had no rights or protection at all - whatever the adults wanted to do with them, they had to obey.

So there’s the issue of consent in pederasty. Does anyone really think that 13-year-old Cecchio wanted to share a bed with, and be (potentially) molested by, 66-year-old Michelangelo? Possibly Cecchio had no say in this at all - the sextogenerian Michelangelo and his own uncle were the grown-up adults in control, and decided for him. Cecchio then mysteriously died of an 'unknown cause' - who knows what happened.

And could 10-year-old Salai have been potentially ‘groomed’ by 40-year-old da Vinci? Possible, but we'll never know.

The problem for both da Vinci and Michelangelo is that they often worked for, and within, the Catholic Church. And what is the Catholic Church often notoriously known for? Plenty of young apprentice boys, and sexual abuse. That environment seems to have rubbed off on Michelangelo based on his letters (and possibly on da Vinci based on his only close relationship).

[quote]Old societies didn't recognize a lot of human rights in the 15th-16th century - that doesn't mean that those socially back-ward societies were morally right. They had forced marriage. They generally didn't prosecute rape and physical abuse / battery within marriage. Depending on the region, slavery was ok.

Just like Islamic countries today!

"Boys were substitutes for women."

Why would you need a substitute for a woman instead of getting an actual woman? It's not like he was in prison, or on a whaling ship.

You guys need to get a clue before lecturing others about history. It's also a myth that girls regularly married when they were 13 or so. Even back then the average age at first marriage was not that young.

I read "DaVinci's Ghost" last year, and it brought up a major problem with a biopic: DaVince's life wasn't that interesting. His work was as interesting as hell, the times he lived in were fascinating, but DaVinci himself spent those interesting times pottering around the workshop or vaguely looking for patrons to support his pottering. All the interesting stuff was inside the man's head. Frankly, another documentary about DaVinci's work is likely to be far more engrossing than a movie about the man, especially if you de-gay it all, something that's guaranteed if you sign the overrated DiCaprio.

And to the idiot who says that we can't assume that DaVince was gay because there's no reference to homosex in his papers, well, "sodomy" was illegal and DaVince was arrested for it once. He wasn't fool enough to write down anything that could be used against him in court, however useful it may have been to historians.

[quote]Why would you need a substitute for a woman instead of getting an actual woman?

*sigh*

From "The private life of Leonardo Da Vinci" re: sodomy.

"La sodomia era (almeno teoricamente) un gravissimo reato, che poteva addirittura condurre alla pena di morte, ma la sua stessa gravità la rendeva altrettanto difficile da dimostrare; nella Firenze del tempo, la pena relativa veniva eseguita molto raramente e l'omosessualità era sufficientemente diffusa e tollerata da rendere la parola Fiorenzen-fiorentina un termine gergale per indicare l'omosessuale in terra tedesca."

"Sodomy was (at least theoretically) a very serious offense, which could even lead to the death penalty, but its gravity made it equally difficult to prove; in the Florence of that era, its punishment was carried out very rarely and homosexuality was sufficiently widespread and tolerated to make the word "Fiorenzen" (Fiorentine) a slang word to indicate "homosexual" in Germany. "

Note the words: "widespread and tolerated".

continued:

Man-on-man sex was common in Renaissance Italy. It is often common and widespread in environments where sex with women is difficult to come by because of social mores.

[quote]DaVinci was arrested for it once.

Wrong. Da Vinci was never arrested for sodomy.

If the boy's uncle wanted to publish the poetry as written and make clear Michelangelo's emotional and physical love for the boy he would be outing the man. If he were pimping out the boy there would be no way he would want to publish the poetry as written. It would be too close for comfort and possibly implicate him.

Just looking at Caravaggio's paintings at the Met makes me uncomfortable. It is clear he is looking at those boys as erotic and sensual beings. No doubt about it. There is lust in his gaze.

It's "Leonardo", not "daVinci".

R153, Cecchino's uncle was probably aware of Michelangelo's bad reputation beforehand, yet the family still sent the 13-year-old nephew to be a 'pupil' of Michelangelo. And, after the boy's unexplained death, Michelangelo surprisingly didn't feel any social stigma or fear in sending very suggestive poetry to the uncle about possibly sharing a bed with his boy nephew. And, even more surprisingly, the uncle didn't seem to react with shock or anger.

Why did Michelangelo send the uncle pederastic poetry - with a simultaneous note to destroy it “in fire without witness”? It shows that he trusted the uncle completely with this criminal information, and felt safe enough to brag about his possible conquest of the boy. It seems like both men were in on it.

No one really knows, but it was a very strange and possibly sad arrangement.

[quote]Just looking at Caravaggio's paintings at the Met makes me uncomfortable.

MARY!

[quote] "sodomy" was illegal and DaVince was arrested for it once

Da Vinci was (anonymously) accused of sodomy, arrested, but the charges were dropped. No witnesses ever came forward to accuse him (compare that to Oscar Wilde who had many witnesses confirm his homosexuality at trial).

“In 1432 the city established “The Officers of the Night” to root out the practice of sodomy. From that year until 1502, [bold]the number of men charged with sodomy numbered more than 17,000, of whom 3,000 were convicted. This number also included heterosexual sodomy[/bold].”

“Accusing people of crimes they didn’t commit was a scheme used often in those days by competitors or personal enemies.”

So basically there was a religious nut-job organization, the nefariously named “Officers of the Night”, who arrested literally thousands of men left and right based on unverified 'sodomy' accusations. Similar to Spanish Inquisition (which was established around the same time - 1478) when the crazy Catholic zealots arrested thousands of people based on 'witch-craft' accusations. And just like during the witch-hunts, many of those accusations were false.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, because she was arrested and convicted for the crime of witch-craft – is that proof that she was a witch? No.

R156 President of NAMBLA

N-A-M-B-L-A

[quote] And to the idiot who says that we can't assume that DaVince was gay because there's no reference to homosex in his papers

Oh dear, R148, is so smart and anyone who doesn’t share his opinion is an “idiot”.

We simply don’t know if da Vinci was gay because there’s no conclusive evidence (either in his writings or by testimony of his contemporaries). He could as easily have been an asexual scientist, for all we know. He didn’t pen any letters of romantic infatuation, or even platonic love, to any male friends or companions (compare that to Michelangelo's declarations of possible lust for young boys). Moreover, da Vinci's contemporaries never stated that he had a romantic adult male lover. Da Vinci’s only close companion was a child who grew up with him.

But, fine, let’s throw logical analysis and caution to the wind, and proclaim, with 100% conviction, that Leonardo was gay and a pedophile. Are we happy now?

[quote] another documentary about DaVinci's work is likely to be far more engrossing than a movie about the man, especially if you de-gay it all

Yes, who needs a boring movie about a genius scientist and philosopher with no sexual romance in it. So let's do a Hollywood re-make of da Vinci's life, directed by James Franco, and turn the cerebral, introverted da Vinci into a gay sex star, who had steamy sex left and right with many men. The movie will then show how the only love of his life was the little 10-year-old boy who lived with him and drew dicks in his notes (as seen in R138’s link). And as the boy grew, so did da Vinci's sexual lust for him - and it all culminated in hot daddy-and-son sex.

In this movie, Woody Allen will play da Vinci - both basically adopted young kids, 'fell in love' / lust with them, and possibly started having sex with them. Because that's not cringe-worthy at all. And everyone will flock to see such a wonderful, heart-warming, love-inspiring 'gay' movie.

Overwrought much?

Overwrought? No, just a bit saddened. For a long time now, there's been a good effort to educate people that homosexuality and pedophilia / ephebophilia are not the same thing. Yet, there are still people today who see an equal sign between the two.

Many biographers and historians (who are straight) are completely ignorant of the difference - they see a near 70-year-old man possibly sleeping with a 13-year-old boy and call them 'gay lovers'. Sigh.

And now people are so motivated to pull da Vinci and Michelangelo into the gay ranks and advertize them as 'gay heroes' and 'gay role-models' based solely on their art - without realizing that the real-life sexual proclivities of these men seem to be extremely controversial, and possibly pederastic / abusive.

There's really nothing to gain by trying to label them as 'gay'. It will just give ammunition for people to say: "Oh, you see, gay people do lust after very young kids! What perverts."

Da Vinci and Michelangelo were very 'complicated', to put it lightly, and not like men today at all. Modern people don't share with them a common sexuality and sexual practices - and that's a very good thing.

"Modern people don't share with them a common sexuality and sexual practices - and that's a very good thing."

There are modern men who are attracted to young boys. Just ask anyone at Penn State.

R162 You seem more concerned with the image of these men than the truth, or the possibility of truth.

Why?

Does it make you uncomfortable that your heroes might have been pedos? And the gay community doesn't exactly help itself by seeking younger guys. Lets face it, a lot of gay men are ephebophiles.

It's probably natural for some (many?) to be attracted to tender ones in the first blushes of manhood but our society has agreed to rules against acting on it.

I don't think primal humanity has changed much over the centuries but our common law certainly has.

Yes, should have said "Mentally healthy modern men".

Notice how no one is labelling Jerry Sandusky or Michael Jackson as gay.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Blind item about Kate and Leo's "romance"

[quote] Does it make you uncomfortable that your heroes might have been pedos?

That was the point, R164. They shouldn’t be anyone’s ‘heroes’. In their professional work, they were geniuses. But in their private lives, it’s very likely they weren’t ‘heroes’ at all, quite the opposite.

[quote] Lets face it, a lot of gay men are ephebophiles.

Ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek) are people who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds. Even without current criminal laws, normal adults are not sexually attracted to 15-year-olds.

A 10-year-old would generally be a pre-pubescent – so if da Vinci was indeed attracted to Salai at that age, that would be pedophilia.

A 13-year-old would generally be on the cusp of puberty – so since Michelangelo was evidently attracted to Cecchio, that would be hebephilia (generally 11-14 year-olds).

[quote]Da Vinci was (anonymously) accused of sodomy, arrested, but the charges were dropped.

No, you are wrong. Let me repeat: Leonardo was never arrested. You are rewriting history.

Also: the noted German historian Maike Vogt-Luerssen makes the claim that Leonardo was in fact married for a time to Isabella d'Aragona

Well, that settles it, then, r170.

If a German historian claims that da Vinci was once married to a woman (maybe), then he can't possibly have been gay.

“In 1432 the city established “The Officers of the Night” to root out the practice of sodomy. From that year until 1502, the number of men charged with sodomy numbered more than 17,000, of whom 3,000 were convicted"

In 1432 Florence had a population of about 60,000 people. Adult men probably made up 25% of that. So basically every adult male in Florence had been accused of sodomy! Not bad!

BTW: "sodomy" in the renaissance era included all kinds of sex acts including masturbation.

[quote]If a German historian claims that da Vinci was once married to a woman (maybe), then he can't possibly have been gay.

She is an authority on the Italian Renaissance.

Now tell us about you.

R139, that's because you were before his time, Tallu.

It’s definitely an interesting, quite plausible theory, R170.

The Sforza Family was one of the most influential families of the Italian Renaissance. Of special interest are the extraordinarily modern and educated ladies of that family.

Isabella of Aragon was a royal Princess and daughter of the King of Naples (born in 1470). In 1489 (at ca. age 19) she married Gian Galeazzo II Maria Sforza, the Duke of Milan - making her the royal Duchess of Milan. The marriage produced 3 children. But her husband died unexpectedly after only 5 years of marriage.

After being widowed, Isabella apparently (secretly, non-publicly) married again – because she had 5 more children. It is possible that the secret marriage was to Leonardo da Vinci, who was her private court painter for ca. 17 years.

The reason why this (possible) marriage was kept secret is: she was a Duchess and Princess (royalty) and da Vinci was born out-of-wedlock (making him a ‘bastard’) and his mother was a peasant, making him a commoner. Due to their different social class, even if they had wanted to, a public marriage ceremony between them would not have been allowed by Italian society or her powerful, ruling, blue-blood Sforza family.

Da Vinci seems to have used Isabella as a model for many beautiful portraits and paintings (including, possibly, the “Mona Lisa”), and painted portraits of the children.

Isabella’s daughter from her first marriage went on to marry the King of Poland. Isabella’s daughter from her second (clandestine) marriage was regarded as a great intellectual beauty and admired by the King of Spain.

In the early summer [of 1499], [...] Leonardo [...] carried out some plumbing works for [his patroness], Isabella of Aragon, who [had her private room in] a wing of the Corte Vecchia, where Leonardo [also] had his studio. He devised a mechanism "for her stove and her bath", he said, thanks to which the Duchess had as much hot water as she wanted. [...] In August, as the [enemy] French [army] besieged Arazzo ... Leonardo was still imperturbably occupied with 'the Duchess's bathhouse'. "

I like Leo DeCaprio. Don't get the anti-Leo brigade. Taking the moral high ground about his shagging of models? Hypocrisy. He's not human trafficking, he's not coercing them, they are of age, they know his history, have at it Leo.

Maike Vogt-Luerssenn is a nonentity. One of several writers who periodically make claims about Leonardo discoveries.

R178 Ok...who's THE expert. Tell us please.

Carlo Pedretti.

I thought everybody knew that!

Carlo Pedretti says that Leonardo was not gay. In fact he claims that Leonardo frequented (female) prostitutes and that he fell in love with one.

He says that at most Leonardo was bisex. But then most men were in Florence.

Carlo Pedretti (born in Bologna, Italy, 1928) is an Italian historian. For the past 7 decades, Carlo Pedretti is regarded as the foremost authority on the life and works of Leonardo da Vinci.

In his foreword for the book "Carlo Pedretti - A Bibliography of His Work On Leonardo da Vinci And The Renaissance (1944-1984)", compiled by Joyce Ludmer, famed art historian Kenneth Clark states: "Pedretti is unquestionably the greatest Leonardo scholar of our time".

Pedretti is a professor emeritus of art history and Armand Hammer Chair in Leonardo Studies at UCLA, and is the author of more than 50 books and 700 essays and articles in various languages, on the many aspects of his specialty. He is a member of the ministerial committee for the National Edition of Manuscripts and Drawings by Leonardo da Vinci. The honors conferred in Italy and abroad include: the Gold Medal for Culture by the President of the Italian Republic in 1972, and in that same year, the Congressional Citation, which is the highest award by the United States government.

He has also been awarded the honorary citizenship of the city of Arezzo (2001) and honorary degrees from the University of Ferrara (1991), Urbino (1998) and Milan (1999), as well as the University of Caen in France (2002). He is an honorary member of the ancient Academy of Euteleti to San Miniato al German and other prestigious organizations and institutions in Italy and abroad.

He is noted as an expert consultant in authenticating disputed works by Leonardo da Vinci.

Text by Carlo Pedretti, director of the Miami Center for Leonardo Studies at the University of California:

The legacy of the Tuscan artist's homosexuality was started by Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic interpretation of his art work, but real-life records suggest that da Vinci frequented female prostitutes.

This illuminates the darkest side of the private life of the author of the 'Gioconda'. Based on documents kept at the Ambrosiana Library in Milan, the famous painter in his advanced age was accompanied by female courtesans, one of whom is now known by the nickname 'Cremona'. Leonardo seems to have had a close relationship with this female prostitute after 1513, when he was 60 years old and called to Rome by Giuliano de Medici, brother of Pope Leo X.

This is supported by the research of Alessandro Vezzosi, author of hundreds of exhibits, publications and conferences in Italy and abroad (from the US to Japan) on Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance, and director of Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci.

Vezzosi found documents that suggest that da Vinci attended a female brothel in Milan around 1490. Vezzosi deciphered manuscripts kept at the French Institute in Paris, which contain facts suggesting that Leonardo paid female prostitutes for sex.

Based on the available information, Da Vinci was most likely not homosexual, but at most bisexual.

[quote]BTW: "sodomy" in the renaissance era included all kinds of sex acts including masturbation.

True, that's what many people don't understand. In that era, sodomy didn't just mean buttsex.

Buttsex, mmmmm

Buttsex, oooooooow

R177, i don't dislike diCaprio, except for his bad acting.. let him fuck whomever he wants, or not.

da Vinci is all things to all people.

I hope that settles that.

Still if Di Crapio can do the things he did in Wolf of Wall Street he can get his tongue up some beautiful renaissance male model's hole in this one.

R169, nearly every reference source that I've consulted places the age of ephebes at18 to 20. A few source go as low as 16 or 17. Where did you get 15? How reprehensible that one might be attracted to a 20-year-old! It always puzzles me when the marginalized and oppressed seek to marginalize and oppress further. If the attraction is mutual ,the parties are of sound and capable mind and discretion, and no harm is being done, who are you to dictate what's normal?

"If ...the parties are of sound and capable mind."

Rules out anyone under thirty.

"I like Leo DeCaprio. Don't get the anti-Leo brigade."

A few hate him because he's a closet case, but most "haters" are like me - they just think he's overrated as an actor. Sure, he's competent, but he's never GREAT. Every time he takes a role in an A-list script he takes that rolel away from an actor who could do more with it, make a good movie into an incredible one. I mean Leo goes through all his paces and doesn't embarrass himself, but he never reaches out and grabs the audience by the heart.

And WTF about Winslet? Is she between husbands again? She always seems to be marrying someone new.

R184, I think that the sodomy accusation was made about acts committed with a male artist's model. It wasn't just generic "sodomy."

"But then most men were in Florence."

According to whom?

R170, it's not likely that an Italian noblewoman would have married the illegitimate son of a peasant, which da Vinci was.

^ The "marriage" never happened. Just shit people made up with no evidence to back it up.

R194, she was only around 24 when her first husband died. It was suggested that, after being widowed, she had 5 more children (can someone confirm how this is known?) during a second, clandestine marriage. If that information is correct, why would she keep her second marriage a secret? A 'lowly' marriage outside of her noble class is one possible reason.

Whether it was with da Vinci is debatable. She was his patroness and benefactor, he was her private court painter for almost 2 decades, lived near her apartments and used her as a model for various works.

[quote] Still if Di Crapio can do the things he did in Wolf of Wall Street he can get his tongue up some beautiful renaissance male model's hole in this one.

It will probably have to be a 10-year-old male model, for Salai.

[quote] nearly every reference source that I've consulted places the age of ephebes at 18 to 20. A few source go as low as 16 or 17. Where did you get 15?

R189 – we seem to be talking about different things. You seem to be referring to “Ephebes” – a formal class of young men in Ancient Greece who had to undergo compulsory 2-year military training, from age 18 to age 20.

Whereas, I’m talking about “Ephebophilia” – a sexology / psychology concept coined in the 19th century (not in Ancient Greece), which describes a PRIMARY or EXCLUSIVE sexual preference by ADULTS for MID-to-late adolescents. Source: "Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior” and “Psychopathia Sexualis”.

Ephebophilia is based not on rigid age brackets, but on the puberty status of the teenager.

Young adolescents, who started puberty (generally 11-14 for boys), are the subject of Hephebophilia.

Middle and late adolescents, who are in the process of completing the main stage of puberty (generally 15-17 for boys, or until 19 if they had delayed puberty), are the subject of Ephebophilia.

People who have already completed the main stage of puberty, and are biological adults, are the subject of Teleiophilia (from 'teleios', meaning 'full grown' in Greek).

[quote] How reprehensible that one might be attracted to a 20-year-old!

No, the main stage of biological puberty generally ends in teenage years, so a 20-year-old would generally not be considered a subject of ephebophilia.

Also, ephebophilia should not be confused with an incidental / occasional-only interest in mid-to-late teenagers – it’s when an adult is ONLY or MOSTLY sexually interested in such teenagers.

The preference can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder if it results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior, under the DSM specification 309.2, "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified".

[quote] If the attraction is mutual, the parties are of sound and capable mind and discretion, and no harm is being done, who are you to dictate what's normal?

“Sound and capable mind” – there’s your answer. A 15-year-old is often still completing puberty and hormonal changes, and does not have a developed enough mind to understand and protect himself from adult manipulation and potential abuse. Biologically, a teenage brain is still developing, especially the brain area responsible for risk assessment – that’s why teenagers are more prone to risky, dangerous, over-emotional, hormonal behavior, and are more impressionable & prone to brain-washing / suicide. Their brains are literally under-developed.

Having said that, 16-17 is a grey area as some people do mature, biologically at least, at that age. Especially girls, as they generally enter puberty earlier than boys and go through it faster. That’s why many European countries set the age of consent at 16, but provide safeguards in case there’s a big age gap and manipulation.

If a young, attractive, widowed Sforza princess had five kids out of wedlock instead of being pushed into another marriage that was advantageous for the Sforzas, it must have been that she was involved with someone who was able to benefit the Sforzas in some ways. The upper classes didn't marry for love in those days, and they certainly didn't allow valuable princesses to marry bastard peasants, and if she'd have tried they'd have had the marriage annulled or made sure she was widowed immediately. And no, the Sforzas wouldn't have seen DaVinci as someone who would be an asset to their family, even if he was the greatest genius of the age if not of all time.

No, Isabella's lover must have been someone of power and influence, who was married or in the church. Most high church officials had families with their mistresses in those days, and being the mistress of a cardinal or a bishop was practically respectable, while being married to someone of a lower class would not have been.

It is unlikely that a royal Princess, the daughter of a King and widow of a Duke, and a Duchess in her own right by birth, would become anyone’s mistress. She wasn’t just nobility, she was Royalty. If she did have more children after becoming a widow, they would have most likely been produced in a second marriage, even if the marriage itself was kept quiet and not publicly known.

Widows also possessed more independence than unmarried girls back then. They were no longer prized virgins used as trade for arranged marriages, but respected mothers with children of their own, so their families usually didn’t push them into more arranged marriages and left them in peace. And most eligible royal / noble men would not consider widows, especially those who already had children, a first choice for marriage either.

But the real question (to the poster up-thread who mentioned the German scholar) is how do we know those children were hers?

The alleged offspring from her quiet second marriage are:

1. Francesco da Melzo (b. 1498) – Count of Melzo

2. Giovanna of Milan and Aragon (b. 1502) – married the Duke of Paliano

3. Antonio of Milan and Aragon (b. 1506) – Duke of Montalto

4. Isabella the Younger of Milan and Aragon (b. 1510) – married the Prince of Squillace and Count of Olivito (a Borgia family member)

5. There’s also another girl, Maria, but it seems there might be some confusion about her as she seems to have had different parentage.

Also, didn’t the Sforza family, into which Isabella married and which patronaged Leonardo, start to collapse and drastically lose power around the same time (ca. 1500)?

Her husband (and cousin), the 6th Duke of Milan, died under suspicious circumstances. Prior to that, his father, the 5th Duke of Milan, was assassinated. Her husband’s uncle, the Machiavellian Ludovico Sforza, the 7th Duke of Milan, lost the war to the French in 1500 and was imprisoned until his death.

Isabella’s son from her Sforza marriage, the heir to the Sforza name and future Duke of Milan, was taken to France and then died there in a riding accident. Leonardo apparently went on a trip to France, made a painting of her son and brought or sent it back to her.

There is a real question about how much control her family had over her as a widow (or even how much attention they paid her), since they were probably preoccupied with death upon death in their family and a war with the French.

It’s also interesting to consider da Vinci’s prospects for marriage in general (irrespective of what his sexuality was). He was a famous person even back then, but of low class – a bohemian artist, a hired painter. His father was a notary, his mother – a peasant. He was illegitimate.

Given all these factors, his options in terms of marriage were very limited. He could probably only marry either a peasant girl or a girl from the merchant / trader class. But back then women of such low class would generally not be educated at all. Whereas, he was a super-intellectual and, as a court painter, he lived in the same court environment with very educated, rich nobility and royalty. The female models who sat for him were mostly all educated noble-women. Even if he was interested in marriage (for whatever reason) – he was probably barred from marrying into the class that was most suitable for his intellect – nobility. And noble-women were generally barred from extramarital relations.

That might explain why he held company with famous female courtesans – they were of low status, but in those times courtesans were generally very erudite (read poetry, knew the arts, geography, history), and they mixed in the same court circles.

^ And yet tons of other artists managed to find wives. Seriously, you sound like the fraus who think Liberace never married because he just couldn't get over Sonja Henie.

R203, were other artists in the same unusual position as da Vinci (a bastard of peasant stock, a polymath obsessed with work, and the greatest genius of his time)?

Raphael, another word-famous painter, was reportedly straight but never married either. He was engaged to a Cardinal's niece at one point, but he didn't seem to want to get married at all. The engagement lasted for around 6 years (!), without any progress to marriage, and then she died. LOL

There were lots of genius scientists who never married: Isaac Newtown, Nikola Tesla, both Wright Brothers (inventors of the modern airplane). They seemed to spend most of their time obsessing over their scientific work.

It's unlikely that both Wright Brothers were gay, though they could have been slightly autistic.

And maybe they were all fags, r204.

Raphael is said to have had many affairs, but a permanent fixture in his life in Rome was Margherita Luti, known as "La Fornarina", the daughter of a baker.

Wiki says Raphael's death was caused "by a night of excessive sex with Luti, after which he fell into a fever and, not telling his doctors that this was its cause, was given the wrong cure, which killed him"!

What kind of fever can you get from a night of "excessive" sex?

r204, that's a pretty small number of people so you are proving my point. I know guys who are registered sex offenders or broke and on welfare who managed to find wives.....but apparently a famous artist could not. LOL.

One of the Wright Brothers is now thought of as being gay.

[quote] that's a pretty small number of people so you are proving my point.

R207, the list just provided examples. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive and exhaustive list of every male in history that never married.

[quote] I know guys who are registered sex offenders or broke and on welfare who managed to find wives

Yes, let's equate modern 21st century marriage customs with 16th century ones. Today, anyone can generally marry anyone. Back then, rich & high-class couldn't marry poor & low-class, and most marriages were arranged. Today, a man requesting a father's approval for his daughter's hand is just a nice, symbolic gesture. Back then it was required, and if the father refused, the suitor was out of luck.

[quote] One of the Wright Brothers is now thought of as being gay.

So why didn't the other brother marry? Out of solidarity?

"Yes, let's equate modern 21st century marriage customs with 16th century ones."

In the 16th century people were MORE likely to get married than they are today, not less. Despite your blatherings most people managed to find spouses. The number of people who never married was tiny. And you are wrong that rich people "couldn't" marry poor people.

God, homophobic freepers will always find excuses for why their favorite actor/singer/icon/whatever couldn't find a wife because they can't accept that some people are fucking GAY.

[quote] homophobic freepers [...]

Triggered much, R210? Take the paranoia down a notch.

[quote] In the 16th century people were MORE likely to get married than they are today, not less.

And what does that prove about each individual person's life? Explain to us why Raphael (da Vinci's contemporary) never married.

[quote] And you are wrong that rich people "couldn't" marry poor people.

Sure, that's why all those 16th C aristocrats married peasants, servants and black-smiths.

As for da Vinci, it was already discussed up-thread that research suggests that da Vinci visited female prostitutes and notorious courtesans, and had an unusually close relationship with a 10-year-old boy.

So, at the moment, the choices are: (1) pedophile; or (2) only interested in courtesans. There's a theoretical bisexual option as well, but we really don't know enough about his life.

R211, that's nonsense. We don't have to think that da Vinci was a pedophile: there's no reason to think that da Vinci's relationship with Salai became sexual as soon as the boy entered his household as an apprentice. Salai lived with da Vinci for over twenty years, long after his lack of talent as a painter (and his propensity to steal) had become obvious. Clearly, the two had, over time, developed a very close relationship.

I'd also point out that da Vinci's sodomy arrest (and two-month imprisonment pending resolution of the charges) concerned his alleged relationship with a 17-year-old artist's model/male prostitute.

R212, da Vinci was arrested along with 3 other people on that accusation - are we then implying it was a gang-bang? The charges were dropped, no witnesses came forward, the alleged prostitute did not provide any testimony either.

All 4 people were arrested not by officers of the peace, but by a fanatical religious Inquisition-type organization that arrested literally thousands of men on spurious charges.

"Sure, that's why all those 16th C aristocrats married peasants, servants and black-smiths."

That's because they chose not to marry outside of their class, not because they were literally forbidden from doing so. Even today, most people do not marry outside of their class.

"As for da Vinci, it was already discussed up-thread that research suggests that da Vinci visited female prostitutes and notorious courtesans, and had an unusually close relationship with a 10-year-old boy."

Because of course "research" can never be wrong....I'd like to see what the actual evidence is. Wouldn't be surprised if it is somewhat dubious. I'm always surprised at some of the dubious theories I have seen from historians, even from some respected ones.

"And what does that prove about each individual person's life?"

Well, you are the one making (incorrect) generalizations about the past, so......I could say the same thing.

[quote] That's because they chose not to marry outside of their class, not because they were literally forbidden from doing so.

Really, R214? I'd like to see you, as a young Florentine noble-woman from the 1500s, try to marry a peasant painter, or a tavern owner, or a miller. You're talking nonsense. They couldn't even marry for love if the wanted to. And arranged marriages with illegitimate peasants, or fishermen, or cattle herders, were out of the question.

[quote] Well, you are the one making (incorrect) generalizations about the past

See the point above.

[quote] there's no reason to think that da Vinci's relationship with Salai became sexual as soon as the boy entered his household as an apprentice.

We have doodles of cocks, possibly attributed to Salai, drawn in a very childish manner - possibly drawn when he was a kid. It's unlikely that an older Salai, being now a trained painter, would draw in such a basic manner.

It's entirely possible that they had a sexual relationship at an early stage (similar to Michelangelo likely sleeping with his 13-year-old pupil). It's also possible that they had one at a later stage, but that would still be unnerving in this particular context. Salai was Leonardo's pupil, growing up with Leonardo as his teacher / parental figure, and entrusted to his care since he was 10. If Leonardo then pulled a Woody Allen and started having sex with him - that would be a very creepy turn of events, based on possible grooming.

Having said that, there's not enough evidence to tell us what happened. They could have had a father-son relationship or a pederastic relationship. No one knows for sure.

r215 thinks no one ever eloped

R217 insists that aristocratic, religious women in the 16th C eloped with black-smiths and fishmongers.

[quote]In ancient languages, the words “abduction” and “rape” were often linked, because one usually followed the other.

Technically, even the English word "rape" derives from a verb meaning to "steal away." In other words, in ancient societies there wasn't always a distinction between the crime of abduction (i.e. theft) of a woman and the crime of assaulting her.

[quote] I'd like to see what the actual evidence is. Wouldn't be surprised if it is somewhat dubious. I'm always surprised at some of the dubious theories I have seen from historians, even from some respected ones.

Says a poster who adamantly believes Renaissance people could freely choose to marry whomever they fancied, based on love, and were not subjected at all to forced arranged marriages by their families.

The research is referred to up-thread in R183. If the research had suggested he was only gay, you likely wouldn't consider it "dubious" at all, it would just confirm an inherent bias. The historian is regarded as the premier scholar on da Vinci. His findings were supported by additional research by a second historian. Their credentials are set out in R182.

Does that mean that we know everything about da Vinci's personal life? Of course not. We're just going by the (very limited) information available about his private life.

R213, as I assume you know, one of the other men arrested for having sex with the model/male prostitute was connected to the Medici family. Possible witnesses might have been discouraged from coming forward for that reason.

R221, they weren't "arrested for having sex", they were arrested on an anonymous allegation / tip-off. Which could have been made by a Medici enemy or Leonardo's enemy.

It was already mentioned up-thread that 17,000 (!) men were arrested on allegations of sodomy by that crazy radical religious group. They were rabid fanatics. And people used this paranoid witch-hunt system to put away in jail not only 'guilty' people, but also their personal enemies.

It's similar to the paranoid McCarthy witch-hunts, where people were accused left and right for being "Commies" and "spies" - with hearings / trials and being black-listed from work. Lots of ppl suffered who weren't even Commies.

It's impossible tell which one Leonardo was in that situation: a person 'guilty' of sodomy, an individual accused of smthg he didn't do by a personal enemy, or a friend of a Medici who got arrested together because of Medici's personal enemies.

There was no law forbidding marriage between social classes that I know of, but among the upper classes marriages were arranged and nobody could marry without the consent of the parents or the head of the family,marrying without familial consent was either heavily penalized by the family or could be illegal in some places.

Leonardo would have had a hard time finding a wife that suited him in a society with strong class prejudice and arrangement of marriages. DaVinci had jumped so far out of his birth class that he'd have nothing in common with his official class peers, but he wasn't wealthy or successful enough for a courtier to see him as a good match for a well-educated daughter. A woman might admire or love him, but nobody married for love in those daus they married to fulfil their parent's ambitions. And DaVibci just didn't look like a prize to a grasping, cynical potential father-in-law.

So many people can't get the idea of marriage for love out of their heads, and it just wasn't the norm in DaVince's time. As R223 says DaVince's rise in status could have created a problem in finding a wife who had anything in common with him, but if he'd wanted to marry and have kids he probably would have been able to find an artisan's illiterate daughter who could bear him children and clean his brushes and cook his meals and have church-sanctioned sex with him... if that's what he'd wanted. Maybe he didn't.

Maybe he wanted to marry an aristocrat's well-educated daughter who was used to mixing with his patrons and who could appreciate his genius and was prevented by his lowly bird, maybe he was so obsessed with his work that he didn't want to be distracted by a frau and kids, maybe he was GAY GAY GAY. Guarantee that any film with DeCaprio won't give us option #3.

Lowly BIRTH. Fuck.

As far as I have read, Leonardo was never arrested. Never spent time in prison.

Would any of you please post any link to an authoritative source that says otherwise?

Thanks.

I always wished they's cast RDJ for da Vinci. Di Caprio just can't act ... like at all!

*they'd

What biographies of da Vinci have you read, R226?

Ok Da Vinci was a great genius and magnificent artist. Like that means shit?

He was literally a bastard which trumps everything.

"insists that aristocratic, religious women in the 16th C eloped with black-smiths and fishmongers."

Wow, you're retarded. First of all the stupid analogy about aristocratic women marrying fishmongers has nothing to do with Da Vinci, anyway. He wasn't a fishmonger and fishmongers were probably just as likely to get married as anyone else, they just didn't marry aristocrats.

There are so many gays in the arts which even the most homophobic straight people will admit..........so I think it's really funny when homophobes refuse to believe that a famous artist, writer, or actor could have been gay. It's like the possibility didn't even occur to them.

r231 it's like when straight people are convinced that 99% of famous actors and actresses could NEVER be gay or bi. As if.

"First of all the stupid analogy about aristocratic women marrying fishmongers has nothing to do with Da Vinci, anyway. He wasn't a fishmonger and fishmongers were probably just as likely to get married as anyone else, they just didn't marry aristocrats. "

As the bastard son of a peasant woman, strictly speaking DaVinci would have been considered the social *inferior* of a fishmonger, and that is why nobody he dealt with as an adult would have been eager to have him as a son-in-law.

Which would have been a hell of a situation for a heterosexual who wanted the comforts of a wife and kiddies, but a stroke of fucking luck for a gay artist who didn't want to be tied to a woman. Good thing he was probably gay.

That there was no legal prohibition against marrying a social inferior misses the point a bit, I think. As others have said, marrying for love is a modern notion which would have been pretty much unheard of, but women had no legal standing to make a contract (including a marriage contract) themselves anyway. Women were not recognized by the law as autonomous at the time. They owned no property, and didn't have legal authority to make decisions or choices for themselves. A marriageable daughter was, in a legal sense, her father's property, to do with as he saw fit. On her marriage, she became her husband's property. If Rosa falls in love with the gardener, or the plasterer, who cares? Unless Enzo the gardener touches her, and then he's thrown in jail (or he meets with a swift but unfortunate accident) for despoiling Signore Ludovico's property.

[quote] Wow, you're retarded. [...] your stupid analogy

R231, when your last resort is to call people “retarded” and their arguments "stupid" – it conveys the message that you’ve simply run out of any logical arguments, and have no option but to fill the void with swearing.

[quote] your stupid analogy […] has nothing to do with Da Vinci, anyway […] He wasn't a fishmonger

You seem to lack reading comprehension or memory. You said “R215 thinks NO ONE ever eloped” (i.e. you yourself made a statement not about da Vinci specifically, but about people IN GENERAL). So I replied with a GENERAL example to explain that elopement between 2 people from widely different classes (nobility/royalty vs any other class) in the 15th-16th C was a near impossibility.

[quote] I think it's really funny when homophobes refuse to believe that a famous artist, writer, or actor could have been gay. It's like the possibility didn't even occur to them.

You seem to have paranoia where you see 'homophobes' everywhere and in anything. For the 2nd time now, you are accusing anyone who doesn’t share your opinion (which is not supported by conclusive, historical evidence) of being “homophobic”. You seem to have lost a grounded, objective understanding of what the word “homophobia” means.

And you’ve failed to read (or blatantly ignored) the discussion up-thread. I already said MULTIPLE TIMES that it's not out of the question that he might have been gay / bisexual (R130, etc). However, for that theory to be proven there needs to be more evidence from his private life. At present, the evidence we have from his personal life suggests either (1) pederasty / grooming of a young pupil (like Michelangelo); or (2) a predilection for courtesans and female prostitutes (like the committed bachelor Raphael, who never married or fathered kids, but reportedly preferred no-strings-attached sex with courtesans).

Just to return to OP's question for the moment, has anyone read the Walter Isaacson biography? Could it be the basis for a good movie?

R229 "Leonardo da Vinci. Un mistero irrisolto".

As well as articles, school & university text books, presentations on the RAI (Piero Angela etc.) over the years.

And you?

But even so, I don't consider myself an expert on Leonardo , so let me ask again:

As far as I have read, Leonardo was never arrested. Never spent time in prison.

Would any of you please post any link to an authoritative source that says otherwise?

Thanks.

r235, your opinions are not shared by "conclusive" evidence, either. I have found that homophobes usually required "proof" in order to label someone as gay but have no problem labeling someone as straight with no evidence at all that they had any real relationship with someone of the opposite sex. You sound like an old schoolmarm (minus the intelligence), stomping your feet and attacking people for "swearing"

R238 The world's foremost expert on the life of Leonardo claims he wasn't gay.

Not to take sides here, but let's be honest: given the weight of society's heterosexual bias, and the fact that "the world's foremost expert on the life of Leonardo" appears to be a quite elderly (presumably straight?) man, I'm pretty sure nothing less than an explicit Tom of Finland-style self-portrait showing Leonardo sucking off a stud and signed by him in blood would convince our "world's foremost expert" that the artist to whom he has dedicated his life was gay.

R19, you're a knob. I don't need historians with written proof to know that.

[quote] your opinions are not shared by "conclusive" evidence, either [...] You sound like an old schoolmarm (minus the intelligence)

R238, opinions are not "shared by evidence", they're "supported" by it. No need to call other people "unintelligent" if you can't even string a sentence together.

[quote] no problem labeling someone as straight with no evidence

You either lack reading comprehension, memory skills or you just don't bother actually READING posts that you're replying to. I never "labelled" him as straight either. In fact, I advised up-thread not to label him at all. (Because we might end up having to label him, among other things, a pederast or groomer). But if you DICTATE we slap a restrictive, black-or-white label on him, then I already gave different options up-thread based on existing evidence from his relationships.

So stop putting words into other people's mouths - antagonizing and lying about other posters doesn't win you any points in a logical discussion.

You also seem to suffer from paranoia - because this is the 3rd time that you're bizarrely accusing people of "homophobia" for questioning and analyzing da Vinci's sexuality.

[quote] I have found that homophobes usually required "proof"

No, all rational people require "proof", especially when it comes to historical analysis. "Homophobes" hate people for being gay. No one hates da Vinci for his unclear sexuality.

You seem to shrink away from the concept of "proof" in a discussion and seem to base your opinion just on 'beliefs' - maybe you're a Deplorable.

Way to make your point about antagonizing other posters, r242!

Stating the truth is not antagonizing, R243. R238 has repeatedly been called out for his rants that other people are "retarded" and "homophobic". That's paranoid behavior. He either needs help or is a troll.

[quote] I'm pretty sure nothing less than an explicit Tom of Finland-style self-portrait showing Leonardo sucking off a stud and signed by him in blood would convince our "world's foremost expert" that the artist to whom he has dedicated his life was gay.

That's incorrect and unfair on historians. For example, Michelangelo (da Vinci’s near contemporary) left letters addressed to his male friends, mentioning his love for / infatuation with those men (and also for very young boys). So we have evidence of his male-male and male-boy relationships. Some of them could have been platonic, but overall they give us a more justified basis to theorize that he was gay and a pederast in his private life (with perhaps a minor bisexual streak, because he also wrote in letters about regretting not kissing a particular noblewoman).

We don’t need a “portrait of Michelangelo sucking smn off, signed in blood”. His letters where he mentions various platonic/sexual passions in his private life are sufficiently indicative.

With Raphael – we have multiple contemporary accounts by his peers of his affairs with female courtesans.

Da Vinci, OTOH, is more of a mystery. By then-contemporary and even modern standards, he was very weird. He was reclusive and didn’t seem to have many friends at court. Instead, [bold]he spent his free pastime dissecting human bodies – as many as 30 corpses[/bold]. He handled human intestines. He even seemed to bond with one particular corpse (of an extremely old person), and described it in his journal as “such sweet death”.

Even his broader hobbies were very weird for a ‘humanist’, vegetarian artist: he liked inventing War Machines (catapult, giant crossbow, a TANK, a steam-powered CANNON).

So, outside of his lovely, romantic painting work, he came across like a proto-world war mad scientist.

He seemed to be a genius geek (perhaps autistic), who was married to his work and bizarre pastimes. Based on existing evidence, he didn’t have much interest in most (living) humans or long-term love relationships with any people. Well, apart from his 10-year-old pupil, who he basically raised as a son. But if smthg went down between them, that would make him even more weird.

[quote] heterosexual bias, and the fact that "the world's foremost expert on the life of Leonardo" appears to be a quite elderly (presumably straight?) man

R240, so you are presuming a bias in relation to Da Vinci, which you in turn base on your (additional) presumption about a historian’s sexuality? That’s a double presumption.

Didn’t you say you were a history major? A presumption based upon another presumption is not good historical analysis.

Moreover, you are not sure at all about the historian’s sexuality (you’re even asking it as a question). But even that admission of missing knowledge didn’t stop you from confidently declaring that you’re “pretty sure nothing less of” [an exaggerated porno] will “convince” that particular major historian that da Vinci “was gay”. This shows that you jump to unsupported generalized conclusions about both the historian’s sexuality and da Vinci’s sexuality because of your own bias.

Ironically, in the beginning of your post, you protest that you’re not “taking sides here”, but, based on the above, you’re obviously taking a side, and not even trying to be objective.

And, for your information, that prominent historian suggested da Vinci was not straight, but perhaps bisexual. And you would know that if you did some research, and didn’t jump to conclusions.

[quote]I'm pretty sure nothing less than an explicit Tom of Finland-style self-portrait showing Leonardo sucking off a stud and signed by him in blood would convince our "world's foremost expert" that the artist to whom he has dedicated his life was gay.

And exactly who are you? Do you know Pedretti's body of work? Have you studied Leonard? The Archives in Florence? Do you speak Italian. Have you been able to consult with other Italian scholars?

Tell us about yourself.

Oh give it up, r247. You sound like a total tool. And no, I'm not the Tom of Finland fool.

The cupcake troll is such and unhinged cunt.

R247, -- R240 (Tom of Finland poster) is a self-declared European history major. With those unique, esteemed credentials he trumps all world-renowned historians and all posters here. So that's it, thread closed.

R250 self-declared European history major? I don't know who you're confusing me with but as I said in my post at R237: "But even so, I don't consider myself an expert on Leonardo ".

And I never majored in history. (design yes...history no).

So whoever you are talking about...it sure isn't me.

But one thing is for sure: you're quite the idiot.

R251 / R247, I was referring to the self-declared college-level 'expertise' of the Tom of Finland poster (R240). Apologies if that wasn't made clear.

To the guy who keeps ranting that we mustn't call DaVinci gay because we have no proof but there's a possibility he liked boys:

Your concerns about the definition of "gay" are noted, no need to repeat them any more. And your worries don't make DaVinci retroactively fond of pussy.

"The world's foremost expert on the life of Leonardo claims he wasn't gay."

Is he straight? That tells you all you need to know, he's full of it. Most straight men will never admit their heroes might not be 100% straight. Why do you think there are so few out gays in sports?

"retroactively fond of pussy" - How witty, R253. Pedretti and Vesozzi's research discovered that he visited female prostitutes and showed up at court with courtesans. That doesn't necessarily define his orientation, but it gives some indication about his sexual practices.

I've been sort of following this thread, and for some reason it's only now struck me how truly ridiculous the casting for that movie is. It's like something out of the sublime SCTV. "Leo IS da Vinci!!"

[quote] Most straight men will never admit their heroes might not be 100% straight. Why do you think there are so few out gays in sports?

What is this nonsense about calling da Vinci a ‘hero’ for straight people? He wasn’t an NFL quarterback for the men and he wasn’t Brad Pitt for the women. He was an artist – many straight people (at least in the US) assume that anyone who has anything to do with poetic, exquisite art must be gay or effeminate anyway.

If he happened to have an alternate sexuality, most people today would care about as much as they care about Oscar Wilde being gay.

And da Vinci isn’t a ‘hero’ for gay people either. He didn’t do anything for LGB+, he wasn’t an activist. He was famous for his paintings, not his sexuality or his personal romances. And his paintings mostly featured women and Christian propaganda.

The sexuality of a dead person has nothing to do with modern people. If anyone (straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, pedophile) is trying to seek validation of their own sexuality by tying it to da Vinci’s sexuality, that’s just false equivalence.

It’s like saying “I’m asexual and da Vinci was asexual – therefore I have a connection to some dead prodigy”. Da Vinci was, first and foremost and regardless of his sexuality, an accomplished painter, and most modern people are not. If anyone wants a real connection to da Vinci, they can try to become a painter and emulate & pay homage to his artwork, not his sexuality.

Here here!

Or

Hear hear!

Why DiCaprio?

I don't buy it.

I just don't want DiCaprio as Da Vinci

This is for R237, who asked for evidence that Leonardo had actually been arrested:

The anonymous letter, the denuncia, that started everything was sent in April 1476, when Leonardo was 24. The original does not exist, but a notarized copy, dated April 9, 1476, does. It accuses four men, including Leonardo, of sodomizing a young artist’s model named Jacopo Saltarelli. It doesn’t suggest that there was any kind of gang-bang or that Saltarelli was a victim, only that Saltarelli had entertained these particular men – and many unnamed others -- as customers. On the copy of the letter, next to the four names, is written “absoluti cum conditione ut retamburentur,” which I understand to mean that the four were told that they were being released but were subject to re-examination. It’s fair to infer that the four had been taken into custody, brought to hear the charges and were now under the court’s jurisdiction, i.e., they had been arrested.

The charges were made again, also in an anonymous letter, and there was a second hearing, on June 7, 1476, at which the charges seem to have been formally dropped.

Was Leonardo every imprisoned? Many British and American writers assume so. I’d now say that the evidence isn’t there, except that, years later, in 1505, Leonardo wrote in one of his notebooks that “when I made a Christ-child you put me in prison (“prigione”).” In the 1470s, Leonardo had made a terra cotta head of a “Youthful Christ”—it’s an image of an attractive boy (Saltarelli?) with long hair—and the sodomy charge was his only known brush with criminal law.

After the incident was resolved, Leonardo made his way to Milan, where he would become rich and famous, meet Salai, and also meet his other Tadzio, Francesco Melzi, a fifteen-year-old who was gentle and well-educated (unlike Salai), and also very good-looking.

Walter Isaacson wrote the book from which the film was adapted?

We used to have Sunday dinner each week in New Orleans with Walter's parents! I thought he was a magazine guy.

John Logan (Genius, Specter, Gladiator, and Skyfall) is penning the script.