WAS SHAKESPEARE GAY?
Let's discuss this very important and sexual question.
This is a question pertaining (but not limited) to the domain of history, literature, sexuality studies, and vapid curiosity. I will not pass any judgment as to whether the answer to Shakespeare’s sexuality matters; it is not the focus of this piece, so I will leave that at the mercy of your court. The little scientist in all of us has an affinity for identifying and classifying, and that has both be beneficial and detrimental to humanity. It has been beneficial because different species/people have different needs, we conduct experiments, we identify, and so we know what works specifically for them, which might not work for others. It has been detrimental because after we have identified, we have rounded up, created Auschwitz concentration camp, experimented, then eliminated. We have also had white and colored drinking fountains posterior to categorizing. In any event, musing about Shakespeare’s sexuality or Jesus’ ethnicity is the result of this tendency to play identification games. Meanwhile, the shortcoming of historians and armchair theorists alike in determining the dead’s sexuality substantiates the importance of the interdisciplinary approach to many questions.
I am of the belief that the best way to certainly know if Shakespeare was gay is to participate in a séance wherein we summon the spirit of Shakespeare and ask him, but I might also be crazy, so do not listen to me. While I might not be crazy, Shakespeare could always lie given the anti-gay sentiments of his time (or all time minus Ancient Greek times or the like, methinks), so we are just in a little predicament here, are we not? I suppose, then, that we are left with our curiosity and theories. And therein lies the problem! Theories are just that—theories, and no matter how plausible they might be, they are never on par with the factual. That is exactly why fallacies and loopholes may run rampant where theories are fabricated.
One of the papers I enjoyed writing the most in college was my “Philosophy of Sex and Sexuality” for Metaphysics 247-01 (shout out to Professor Borghini). Prof. B gave us all a chance to choose our own topic for the final paper, and hm…I picked SEX. It was either that or philosophy of race– over-discussed and not as edgy, or philosophy of food—HOW IS THAT PHILOSOPHY? It is very legit, actually (thanks again, Prof. B!). I am not digressing at all. Aaaanyways, one of the main points explicated in the paper is that sexuality is a lot more complicated than we tend to assume, and we are too complex a kind with too long a history to be arbitrators of gay or straight behavior. Seriously, this paper was the most Foucault thing I have ever done in the entirety of my sentient existence.
Alleged “gay” or “straight” behaviors are not final verdicts on what homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, or heterosexuality might be. The way someone (or something) behaves might be a strong indication of where they ought to be filed and sorted, but it is not always a duck if it walks or quacks like a duck; perhaps it is Halloween and someone is wearing a duck costume and just THAT GOOD at duck impressions, you know? Trolling aside, I hope you get the point, it being that behaviors are not final definitions, so we ought to abstain from labeling others clearly and distinctly by the appearances, much less when they are dead—like Shakespeare.
Shakespeare might have been gay, yes and/or no, but under what circumstances? That is an important question. Professional historians and armchair theorists alike must be cognizant that a hint that points to Shakespeare, Alexander the Great, and Anyone-Really’s possible homosexuality (or bisexuality…or pansexuality, etc.) might say more about their time than their sexuality. Namely, Shakespeare’s relationship with a man might be more telling of how men, as friends, behave during his era than anything else. Call it the zeitgeist, the spirit of the time. That is why we ought to be careful. Moreover, there is a matter of culture; did you know that what might be “pretty gay” in America is common “straight” practice in another culture. Men in some cultures kiss each other on the cheeks, some hold hands as friends walking down the street, and wait for it…semen swallowing (from other men) is considered sacred in some cultures –it’s like a ritual, rite of passage, masculinity, and other things. Interesting, isn’t it? Girls who call themselves straight kiss each other, “straight” drunk or even sober guys play around as well sometimes (though less common), Europeans guys are culturally prone to exhibit behaviors that Americans might find gay, many frequents gay bars either for fun or in support of LGBTQ friends, straight guys do gay porn (gay for pay?), etc…yet, what does it mean to be gay?
Ultimately, whether we wonder about someone’s sexuality merely out of curiosity or the need to find power by association, we must be careful. When I say power in association, I mean finding strength or sense of superiority in that Jesus was white or black, saying that Shakespeare was an exceptional writer and he was gay, so in your FACE, bigots! Indeed, I would not mind a gay Shakespeare, gay Jesus, or gay Obama at all; what could be more awesome than showing the world that greatness comes in all shapes and forms? What could be grander than historically marginalized people having great leaders to represent them? We all need heroes, and sometimes the more they resemble us, the better. But above all, we want to be pioneers of the Truth. Maybe, just maybe, for now, we should limit the definition of gay to a sexual attraction to the same sex…the kind of attraction that has you begging for water when someone who looks like God spit on them makes you feel, I don’t know…deserted…HELLFIREEE!
Become a Community Contributor.
