Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s-1950s

In earlier eras, men were much more comfortable showing (and writing about) affection with each other.

To our modern eyes, this will read a gay. But it wasn't necessarily gay.

r1 read the article. They're all gay men.

[quote]They're all gay men.

That is just speculation.

Antique Gays kick

Where are all the pictures of Julian and Landon?!

Lovely photo

I POST ON DL, R2. THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY I WILL READ AN ARTICLE!!!! I will post my knee jerk reactions to any and all headlines while also repeating something that has been said in any given thread 5 or 6 times before because I also REFUSE TO READ THREADS!!!!

Is that Ron Howard and Tony Goldwyn?

Very beautiful collection.

Sent the book to several friends.

The article is false.

These are not necessarily gay men. There is no indication of that.

They are men of their time posing with other men in the fashion men did back then.

R10 = homophobe

Any speculation here on WHY straight men were asked or coaxed or perhaps requested themselves to be photographed together in such intimate poses?

Obviously, it was a different time and there are letters between straight men that also seem to suggest a greater intimacy than we see today between straight men.

But I don't think the phenomena is much in evidence in Victorian and Edwardian literature, at least in England and the US beyond the poems of Walt Whitman. Even Supposed gay writers like Henry James and EM Forster or even Oscar Wilde make no allusions to intimacy between straight men like the kind displayed in many of these photos.

I don't think there are paintings of straight men in these poises either. It's strictly just seen in photos, whether taken in a studio by a professional photographer or casually by a friend. Was there something about the new fad of photography that inspired this?

Bill and Steve's wedding. 1855! I remember it well.

[quote]These are not necessarily gay men.

Perhaps not all, R10, but the two holding a sign that says, "Not Married But Willing To Be"? You can't tell me they're straight.

There is no way those lip locked men are gay. You are all reading way too much into deep kissing. They were sharing spit because the Depression was on and there was a shortage.

[quote]Perhaps not all, [R10], but the two holding a sign that says, "Not Married But Willing To Be"? You can't tell me they're straight.

Are you really that dumb? "Not Married But Willing To Be"....where do they say "with each other"?

The kind of behavior between men that you see in those photos still exists in the South of Europe and the Middle East.

In Southern Italy, in Sicily you will see men walking hand in hand. They're not gay.

In Tuscany where I lived for decades, men will walk side by side, bodies against each other with arms intertwined.

The first time a guy took my arm and walked with me like that I nearly fainted.

And in the 1980s in Italy before women had the freedom they have today, you'd go to a disco and all of the men would be dancing together. It sure looked like a gay club, but wasn't at all.

All of this kind of behavior among men is foreign to Americans today.

Certainly there will be a (very) few of those photos depicting gay couples, but they're mostly straight guys with their buddies.

For the most part, actual gay men were not announcing their sexuality from the rooftops. Touting those photos as photos of gay men whitewashes gay history and what actual gay people went through.

R11 = idiot

Funny, I've been to Sicily and other parts of Italy and never saw any guys holding hands

You sound like the women who saw those pictures of John Travolta kissing his bf and screamed that they were just platonic pals

Secretly!

But the TikTok PhD man says you can be straight and take selfies with your best bro!

Let's try and look at this a bit more objectively -- there were obviously plenty of same-sex-attracted guys in the past, AND the level of comfort men felt expressing affection towards male friends was definitely different than in the present day; but it also varied over time, place and situation -- those pictures of 19th century loggers dancing together is more indicative of the lack of women and boredom then their individual sexualities. Also the pictures in OPs link vary from over almost a century - so there are lots of variables going on.

Most of them do look like romantic couples; frankly gay-face is often a pretty good clue. On the other hand the gents in #2 could just be college buddies, (even tough they are both very handsome, and we would like them to be gay) same with the shirtless guys #8 and #10 - they could easily just be friends. The railroad guys in #7 and the couple posed as dancers on the plinth at #13 could also just be guys fooling around for the camera. I'm not saying all those guys are NOT gay, but the photos don't really settle the matter either way, unlike the smooching going on in #9 and #14.

What is more interesting to me is the acceptance that went into getting many of the images made at the times that they were -- some could easily have been shot and developed personally - so the deep kissing and the guys in bed together may have been done completely privately. But all the studio shots were done publicly. And while some of the photo studios may have been in gay-friendly districts, that's unlikely for all of them -- the black soldiers from 1951 is particularly interesting given the era.

The guys in #3 are also very interesting to read; at first glance they seem like farm boys who have cleaned up for a day in town, on the other hand they could be city guys who are wearing rural seeming hats as a goof, or perhaps those hats were not rural at all -- it's impossible to know for sure without a great deal more knowledge about men's fashion that I have, but I know that I may be reading them wrong; the Past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

Thank you, LP Hartley (r20)!

I'll post a few I've found lately - don't know if they're from that book or not.

I'll bet you the blond guy is gay.

Maybe just college roommates?

This sure looks like gay love to me.

1940's?

[quote]Funny, I've been to Sicily and other parts of Italy and never saw any guys holding hands

You know nothing about Italy.

"The idea of greeting a male friend by kissing him on both cheeks initially seemed a little too weird. Yeah, maybe a hug, but that would be about it. And walking down the street with a male friend with our arms hooked together? Well, that was just an alien concept, until now. Simone taught me, very quickly, to get over my discomfort. I was certain people would stare. They didn’t."

"My wife and I both recall earlier visits to Europe, as college students in the 1950's, when it was not at all unusual to see MEN WALKING HAND IN HAND or arm in arm in Italy and certain other countries. My recollections of this are still vivid because it was such an exotic sight to young American eyes. For a heterosexual American male, holding hands with another man was out of the question. It still is."

[quote]This sure looks like gay love to me.

Of course it does. To you. In the year 2021.

R27, you know nothing about Italy

Wonderful, R18.

[quote]For the most part, actual gay men were not announcing their sexuality from the rooftops. Touting those photos as photos of gay men whitewashes gay history and what actual gay people went through.

Not all gay men were cowering in corners and hiding in the shadows. Some were brave enough to love openly (or as close to open as they could).

Does the man need to go up in the man for it to be gay enough for you?

R32 Can you read? I wrote: "for the most part..."

Don't confuse the 95% or so of those photos with gay men.

[quote] Any speculation here on WHY straight men were asked or coaxed or perhaps requested themselves to be photographed together in such intimate poses?

The novelty -- the opportunity to be photographed was so rare. These poses appear 'intimate' but I am not convinced that all the subjects were in romantic relationships. They could have been gay girlfriends, or just guys who felt very bonded in a non-romantic way. Think of all the photos you've taken with members of the same sex that were not romantic that without context could be construed as such. I have no photographic evidence of my longest ever romantic relationship -- thanks to a bottle of tequila and a book of matches.

[quote]Any speculation here on WHY straight men were asked or coaxed or perhaps requested themselves to be photographed together in such intimate poses?

Coaxed? Requested?

These men were behaving as men did in that era.

It was very common in parts of India for men to hold hands when walking. I think it might be less so now, with the whole "gay shame" thing starting to take hold.

There there

the couple in photo #4 are gorgeous

R25 That looks a like a Victorian Death Photo. A macabre trend of taking a last photo of someone before they bury the body. The guy sitting in the chair is holding up the body in his lap. Notice that the man is staring down at nothing. Photos were a big deal and expensive, so you wouldn't look at the ground when posing (unless you're dead).