Scholarship on the sexuality of Shakespeare is very much debated and it is impossible to say for certain. The one thing historians are decently confident of is that Shakespeare almost certainly liked women, but are unsure of whether or not he liked men.The long story short is that there is enough evidence to suggest that he might have been bi, but not enough evidence to confidently say he likely was or was not. Many scholars in the modern era blame the fact that modern men express intimacy in platonic male friendships much differently than they used to, which makes a lot of men in early modern and prior time periods appear more gay than they actually are. I personally think that claim is bunk, largely because Oscar Wilde was among the first of art historians to confidently claim that Shakespesre was bi.At the end of the day we have no way of knowing.
>>23529828Not only gay but I think of him as a bottom, rather than a top. One of the sonnets ("How heavy do I journey …") ends "my joy lies behind."Yes, yes, I know I’m distorting the meaning. But that doesn’t stop the fantasy.
>>23529828That explains why he wrote women so well, happy for him!
until the majority of Shakespeare scholars are prepared to admit that he was really just a pen name of Edward de Vere and the guy from Stratford was just some literally who I won't take anything they say seriously
>>23529844wait so picrel is some english fag who got mistaken for the real shakespeare?
>>23529849You're a lucky man. Today your whole life is going to change. I wish I could relive my own first exposure to the truth of the Oxfordians. Your journey begins, there's no turning back. No need to thank me
>>23529828>was _____ gay? I cant believe morons are still doing these pointless interpretations. If you ever want to know what grasping at straws is just read one of these essays.
>>23529844>>23529849
>>23529874This. The only person whose homosexuality we can be certain of is OP
>>23529874>>23529881Someone could be the most heterosexual man in the world, writing books about fucking big breasted girls and drinking tiger blood and there'd still be some limp dick MFA retard from San Francisco who writes a 209 page essay about how "he was overcompensating and hiding his gayness."
>>23529881outside of 4chan every literary circle believes shakespeare sucked cock and loved it
>>23529828All of this "who's gay" game loses all its meaning once you realize that sexuality is a choice.
wait, the most famous theater guy of all time might have been gay? woow
>>23529828Aren't his sonnets about the duty to reproduce?
>>23529828>Many scholars in the modern era blame the fact that modern men express intimacy in platonic male friendships much differently than they used to, which makes a lot of men in early modern and prior time periods appear more gay than they actually are.This would easily be proven if anyone showed expressions of platonic male friendship of that time that were similar to Shakespeare's. The closest I got to finding that was a poet a bit older than Shakespeare, who wrote some (seemingly?) homoerotic poetry too, Richard Barnfield. Yet, his poems were criticised because of the homoeroticism, and he had to defend himself, legitimising the poetry by comparing it to the classics, specifically Vergil's eclogue #2, which is itself unambiguosly gay.Shakespeare's own sonnets used to be somewhat ignored, which is weird, there's little account of their reception back from the 17th century. It may be indicative that the most widely available edition of that time period, a bowdlerised one by John Benson that modified the text in various ways (such as combining two sonnets into one, adding dumb titles that explain and interpret the content, etc.) also sporadically "corrected" the gender of the addressee. Even in the 18th century when the first scholarly editions were being prepared (Edmond Malone), the sonnets had to be supplied by various explanations that would make sure the reader understood the sonnets "correctly", as platonic. So, even back then there was the possibility to take it for homosexuality, and not some widely acceptable form of friendship.>>23530226The first 15 or so are indeed. The rest? Have you read them?I suspect almost nobody here has read the Sonnets. It's a weird book, and I suppose many people come to ignore that simply out of acquaintance with "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day" and a few others.
>>23529844>>23529866based. Nothing about Shakespeare makes sense if you don't know he's Oxford.The fair youth is Southampton. Oxford is telling him to marry his daughter and give him an heir.Stratfordians will argue the sonnets addressed to the fair youth mean>dude I'm so gay for you! you should marry a woman and have children! any woman, any children. Because I'm so gay!"That makes zero fucking sense.BTW the 17th of Oxford wrote 17 sonnets to the fair youth. It was an attempt to create #18.
>>23529866>Today your whole life is going to change.That's exactly right. It is exhilarating. Once you know about the Stratford scam, you can start to understand what's gone wrong with the study of literature. Hell, you can see what's wrong with modernity in general. If only de Vere knew that by hiding his identity he would empower the mob from Coriolanus.
>>23529889it's all tHe DeAtH oF tHe AuThOr when you say he's the Earl of Oxford but when you say he gargles balls it's "So true, king!!"
>>23529828>roses are red>violets are blue>faggots are disgusting>and so are you
>>23529866Checked. Who have you read besides Looney? I'm gonna snag the recent Anderson book. But there's mountains of Oxfordian scholarship. The _index_ of publications is its own thick book.
>>23530372When you read the Spenser and Sidney sonnet sequences, and all the lesser Petrarch imitators around at the time, the gay stuff in Shakespeare stands out even more. It would have been very easy for him to switch a few words and make them about girls
>>23529844No. All the "evidence" is bullshit. Shakespeare doesn't exhibit knowledge that would require that he be particularly well-traveled and his historical references don't imply a higher education. De Vere's poems are terrible, nothing like Shakespeare's. The misspelled signatures aren't misspelled, they just aren't standardized. Spenser also has this problem. Ben Johnson, Shakespeare's contemporary and friend, wrote first-hand accounts of Shakespeare.>>23529828Probably. All the sexy women roles in Shakespeare were played by men or boys. It would be a bad environment to be straight in.
>>23529828All great artists have been, to some degree, what would be called "bisexual" nowadays. This is because the mind of a great artist inadvertently recognizes the beauty in both genders.
>>23532230A rich and powerful showbiz producer would never exploit his position to have sex with underage boys
>>23532230>All the "evidence" is bullshit.Even the Stratfordian establishment had to say okay, you have a point here
>>23529828Bro get this he was also Romeo and Juliet too. Shakespeare was literally King Lear, how would he know?
>>23532664Ill humor this. Shakespeare rarely quotes the bible, lets look at the quotations given as examples from the site you show.>Helena: Great floods have flown From simple sources, and great seas have dried When miracles have by the greatest been denied.-Alls Well That Ends Well>Take the [a]rod, and gather thou and thy brother Aaron the Congregation together, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the Congregation and the beasts drink.-Numbers 20.8>How far that little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.>Merchant of Venice>That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.-Phillipians 2:15It is obvious this is bullshit. The other "evidence" is noting Shakespeare compares the body to a temple, invokes the mote and beam parable, and uses "I am that I am" in a poem. These are hardly obscure and any churchgoer would be familiar with them. Very likely the remaining biblical citations are all on this level of idiocy because oxfordians are all retarded.
>>23532234Take your teenage naval gazing elsewhere, fag.
>>23529828Two things:1.Caring about the sexuality of historical figures is incredibly gay and pathetic2.He was definitely bi. All the great artists in history are 100% bisexual because it takes both a feminine and masculine understanding of the world to produce great art. A feminine view truly appreciates the beauty and sensuality of the world and the emotions of humans and it takes a masculine view of the world to understand the politics of life, the quest for purpose etc
>>23529828was OP gay?
>>23533273I have a feminine view or whatever (I certainly find feminine pathologies in my thought now and then) but that has not translated into any interest in faggotry.
>>23533385No I just copy pasted a shitty reddit post to see you all make fun of it for me delight
i remember reading ome in which the subject of the poem has left him for a woman. there's some homosex happening there, it's just a question of what kind.
>>23529828obviously
>>23533524Sure it doesn't sweety xx
>>23529987that's because they're mindless leftist retards who believe whatever garbage is put out by anti-White jewish hack academics like franz boaz
>>23534580What does Boaz have to do with any of that?
