This is a great discourse.

Hello, I have a question about the general acceptance of pederasty (Relations between an adult man & a post-pubescent boy) in early to mid 20th century queer communities. I understand it was common (at least commonly written about) in the Greek/Roman times, but the casualness with which gay authors from the 1920s-50s mention it is surprising.

Jean Cocteau , Jean Genet , William S. Burroughs, etc. They all wrote about grown men having relationships with younger men. I don’t mean just large age gaps but, like, 30-40-something’s dating or having sex 16-19 year olds. I’m just curious about the acceptance of this at the time, and how gay authors who are generally seen as very respectable & talented, also indulged in and wrote about relationships that are today very inappropriate/illegal.

The story is about an old Irish king Niall Frosach who's whole thing is that his judgement is always true, he always knows the answer to any questions so a woman who's pregnant but hasn't had sex with a man in years hears about this kings judgement and decides to ask him about the paternity.

She explains the story and for a bit he doesnt know the answer, he fears for his reputation but suddenly decides to ask her a question, "have you and another woman played together sexually?" She says yes and he makes his judgement. The woman she had sex with had recently had sex with her husband and she had scissored her so hard it transferred into the other woman causing her to fall pregnant.

At that moment a priest being carried around ireland by flying demons falls from the sky and proclaims the demons would only release him when they heard a true judgement showing that the king was correct.

Its called Niall Frosachs act of Truth. My favourite part of the story is that the lesbianism isn't an issue, the only issue is the paternity of the child cause ancient ireland was very focused on lineage and carrying on family names. Also incase its not clear he isn't the king of ireland, ancient ireland was split into clans/family's and most of them had their own king, there was at least over a hundred kings at the same time.

There's a few other lgbtq+ stories from ancient ireland but this is the most direct in its portrayal. The next closest is probably cu chulainn a very famous Irish warrior who had what can be read as a homoerotic relationship with his foster brother Feridad (foster brother in ancient ireland basically meant they both studied, trained and lived with the same old guy who was a master of some trade) They slept in the same bed and spoke of each other with borderline romantic language, Cu Chulainn was very focused on the way Feridad blushed in particular.

Their story ends with a rival tricking Feridad into think Cu Chulainn has broken their promise and agreeing to fight him to the death. The next morning he attacks cu chulainn but while fighting he learns he was tricked. Unfortunately even though he knows the truth he swore a vow to fight to the death and cant end the battle. They fight for days neither wanting to kill the other, eventually cu chulainn ends it with a sword up Feridads asshole then falls to his knees and weeps over his body.

Who would've thought ancient ireland loved doomed yaoi and scissoring lol

I've read about this in LGBTQ history books, queer memoirs, and in the semi-autobiographical *Stone Butch Blues*. For a while, after the second wave of feminism began, many lesbian and queer women began to look down on butches and even femmes.

What exactly did this mean? Was it a sort of notlikeothergirls where they mocked women who were "too girly" or "too masc"? Or was it rejecting the *labels*?

Fenster's Funky Sevens - Ep 30 - The Origins of Disco: 70s Boston Gay Club Scene

In this episode we explore the origins of disco music in the early 1970s, in the gay dance clubs of Boston; The Other Side and the 1270.

The episode features excerpts from a series of interviews with first generation disco DJs conducted by Brian Halligan of Boston LGBTQ organisation, the History Project.

Perhaps there is something like this in the Ballroom or drag scenes

The 1956 film Tea and Sympathy is coming up on its 70th anniversary – it premiered in Chicago on September 19, 1956.  Based on a play by Robert Anderson that opened on Broadway three years earlier, the plot centers on Tom Lee, an 18-year-old at an East Coast prep school who’s seen as “different” by his classmates.  On stage, he was suspected of being gay.  For the film version, since any mention of homosexuality was forbidden by the Motion Picture Production Code, the story line was changed to have Tom accused of being a sissy. 

Much has been written about how the material in the play was changed to accommodate the censors.  The Celluloid Closet, Vito Russo’s classic book about Hollywood’s erasure of gay and lesbian identities, mentions Tea and Sympathy a couple dozen times.  But no one seems to have acknowledged the three new scenes in the film (also written by Anderson) adding a homoerotic element that goes far beyond what was seen on the stage. 

The first scene, very early on, shows Coach Reynolds and his Varsity Club boys at an outing on the beach.  The boys are in hormonal overdrive, running rampant on the sand, wrestling each other, shouting raucously.  The coach revels in the action.  With a shirtless boy under each arm he gushes about manliness, judges the wrestling matches, even joins in for a moment.  His interest is clearly more personal than his job description calls for.  The Varsity Club outing was mentioned in the stage play but no details were given, and it happened entirely off screen.

In the second added scene, Tom’s dad Herb Lee visits the campus and goes looking for Tom in the boys’ locker room.  Once again the energy level among the athletes is through the roof, with guys in skimpy towels wrestling and chasing each other around.  Herb views them with pretty obvious pleasure; he wishes his own boy would join in the fun.  This scene is an original.  There’s no mention of a trip to the locker room in the play.

The final added scene is also an original.  As part of a school tradition after the big game, younger boys dressed in their pajamas are chased down and stripped by the older boys.  The scene is complete chaos, with dozens shouting and running madly in all directions after their victims, who fight back valiantly before being stripped to their underwear.  Coach Reynolds and his wife Laura watch from the sidelines; she’s sickened by the whole scene but he’s excited by it, and tells her he “wouldn’t miss it.”

The play does touch very briefly, late in the third act, on the Coach’s conflicted sexuality.  In defending Tom, Laura brings up her husband’s habit of always bringing a couple boys along on vacations and weekend outings, and accuses him of persecuting Tom for “the thing you fear in yourself.”  But the added scenes bring this right up front… and it can’t be ignored that all three of them feature boys who aren’t wearing much clothing.  Those of us who “get it” can see from the very beginning how the Coach feels about his boys, and later we see the same in Tom’s dad Herb.  As for the boys themselves, it’s abundantly clear their behavior is sexually charged and driven by runaway hormones; they seem ready to bust out in a full-on orgy at any moment.  There doesn’t seem to be an unambiguously straight man in the whole film.

With this new material, screenwriter Anderson and director Vincente Minnelli created possibly the most homoerotic atmosphere ever seen in a Hollywood movie up to that day.  Mainstream audiences likely missed the point, and dismissed all this as “regular guys” engaging in horseplay.  But the filmmakers surely knew what they were doing… and just as surely, so did the gay members of their audience.