spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 That's pretty much how I understood things, although for the authorities to be able to prove something like this happened must have been really difficult whether heterosexual or homosexual. Surely for someone to make a complaint about this happening to them, that they'd need to report it, would suggest it was not consenting and therefore rape...all in all it would be a pain in the arse to prove. And the square root of sod all to do with the state. Once legislation enters consenting peoples' bedrooms it becomes a farce, and provides splendid opportunities for blackmailers, like in that film about blackmail, where an attempt was made to blackmail a gay man and extort money from him via blackmail. I think it was called "Extorting Money From A Gay Man". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Surely for someone to make a complaint about this happening to them, that they'd need to report it, would suggest it was not consenting and therefore rape... Many people will have been caught in the act, perhaps outdoors by a beat bobby(they had beat bobby's in those days) and were arrested and charged. all in all it would be a pain in the arse to prove. fnarr fnarr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think the argument must be that female homosexuality was never illegal(I believe) and therefore the issue should be related to present equality laws. Otherwise I think the conviction would stand as the offence was commited when it was an illegal act. I think Queen Victoria refused to countenance legislation against lesbians because she refused to believe such things went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 We aren't pretending it didn't happen, we're just acknowledging that it shouldn't have been punished by law. I think you are viewing this from a current perspective only. When it was being punished by the law, that was because the law (as determined by the society of the time) thought it to be wrong. As society develops, laws change (we hope, for the good) to mirror the changes in that society. In fifty years time there will be current laws which have been repealed, and new ones enacted. That doesn't mean that the current situation is wrong. It is right for now, but only know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think Queen Victoria refused to countenance legislation against lesbians because she refused to believe such things went on. Either that or no one dared explain the facts to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 And the square root of sod all to do with the state. Once legislation enters consenting peoples' bedrooms it becomes a farce, and provides splendid opportunities for blackmailers, like in that film about blackmail, where an attempt was made to blackmail a gay man and extort money from him via blackmail. I think it was called "Extorting Money From A Gay Man". And pray tell me how do you know if the man is gay ? unless of course they want to bring attention to themselves as being gay for whatever reason..attention seeking perhaps....I think it was called..."Look at me I'm gay" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutts Nutts Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think Queen Victoria refused to countenance legislation against lesbians because she refused to believe such things went on. I think she said something about not believing it and the very thought left a nasty taste in one's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Either that or no one dared explain the facts to her. My faux pas: The myth Lesbianism was never made illegal in Britain because when Queen Victoria was shown the proposed legislation she refused to sign it, as she wouldn’t believe that lesbians existed: “Women do not do such things.” In other versions of the story, government ministers struck out all references to women in the Act, because they couldn’t think of a way of explaining matters to the dear old queen. The “truth” The idea that Victoria refused to sign the Labouchere Amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, until it had been de-lesbianised, is easily dealt with: the British monarch in the late 19th century did not have the power to overrule parliament – any attempt to do so would have triggered a political earthquake. The myth apparently started in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1977, to explain why a demonstration for lesbian equality centred on a statue of Vicky. Labouchere’s true motives for criminalising male homosexuality are still disputed; what seems certain is that banning female homosexuality never crossed his mind. Some historians suggest that the male establishment avoided legislating on lesbianism, for fear of drawing women’s attention to its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It seems "Don't tell them for goodness sake, they'll all be at it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 If lesbianism became illegal there would be riots on the streets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.