#where the death penalty is not uncommon for homosexuality

[meangan-thee-lesbian]

Hello, I'm from Gaza

My name is Farah

Can you please help me to study at the university

Me and my family have lost our home, our car, and our dream to study

I hope just to help me to start my education

I was in my first year at university in Gaza but after the war, I lost everything my dream and my education 💔

Hope you really can help with anything

Thank you in advance

https://gofund.me/7417ca2b

https://gofund.me/0974b65e

This screams scam but in any case: according to the latest polls there is a %93 chance you support the death penalty for gays & lesbians. And I know many other homosexuals might have sympathy for you, but I'm a militant homosexual who does not care for the life of any homophobe. Suffer the consequence of your 7th Oct.

[spider-xan]

One reading of what Mr. Utterson suspects the possible relationship between Jekyll and Hyde, and the 'ghost of some old sin', might be is that Hyde is his illegitimate son, but between Hyde entering through Jekyll's back door (literally and metaphorically), Utterson having a nightmare of Hyde breaking into Jekyll's bedroom while he's sleeping and forcing him to do his bidding in the middle of the night, and thinking of shenanigans around Jekyll's bed a second time, another theory he might have is that Hyde is Jekyll's secret lover, either estranged or ongoing, and between those two possibilities, the latter would be far more dangerous to Jekyll in social and legal terms if it were to be discovered or used to blackmail him.

For historical context, the novella was published in 1886, though as we will later find out, the only information we are given about the temporal setting is that the story is set in the 19th century, though it can't be any earlier than 1850, if you do the math based on Jekyll's age. Homosexuality between men in the UK in the form of sodomy was punishable by death until 1861, during which the Offences Against the Person Act was passed to amend the penalty for sodomy from death to a minimum of ten years in prison; later, and just prior to the novella's publication, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 criminalized any and all acts of homosexuality between men (not just sodomy), including those done in private with no witnesses — even a mere affectionate letter would suffice as evidence for prosecution — to the point where it became known as the Blackmailer's Charter (source); this would later be the act under which Oscar Wilde would be found guilty of 'gross indecency' in 1895 and sentenced to prison.

Meanwhile, it wasn't uncommon for upper-class men to have illegitimate children, and while potentially scandalous, it would not necessarily be life-ruining — though of course, the concern in that case could be that Hyde has other information he is holding over Jekyll's head as blackmail, including possible relationships with other men that would be both scandalous and illegal during this time period.

[sorrynotsorryforwritingthat]

I did actually write this instead of sleeping.

Today the rules in schools regarding bullying are strictly a no violence policy which in theory sounds good, but if one students feels entitled enough to inflict harm on another student they will do so regardless, and the victim of bullying (of course, this term is not necessarily referring to physical harm inflicted on others, but might also refer to verbal or emotional harm inflicted, even though this is not what I am discussing at this point) might even get expelled when push comes to shove, seeing as it will often be the pupils words against each other, sometimes even more people will back the bully simply because they’re afraid of them, or because they are genuinely friends with them (the bully and their friends might not always see themselves as the bullies, a fictional example of this is the group called the marauders in the popular series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling, that without a doubt traumatized and bullied one Severus Snape in the fictional piece of literature. They still saw themselves as the good guys and later drove Severus down a very dark and lonely path).

It has been proven time and time again that the current system in place isn’t working, and the only thing that will make a more accepting society is a more inclusive education in schools. It is important that everyone has the freedom of their own beliefs, but when these beliefs are challenged it should not result in harassment of fellow students. When indoctrination often starts at a young age it is the school systems responsibility to counter-act the spreading of information that might end up hurting genuine human beings in the future, after all, one of the current school systems the greatest responsibility isn’t spreading correct information to educate the next generation, but to raise us to be functioning members of this society.

It stands to argue that this is a harmful thing, when it usually tends to narrow peoples’ mindsets as well as resulting in that the same mistakes continue repeating, as well as the powerful people keep their power. People in positions of power will often do everything they can to make sure they keep that power, and that they get their way the majority of the time.

That is why the two-party-system in the United States of America, for example, is a faulty system, seeing as the party that won the election will go on to become president, and then change as much as possible just because, come next election, there’s a 50% chance their opponent will get voted in the office instead and so the cycle will repeat.

Humans are animals that appreciate patterns, as do nature, but after a while they get tiresome, when we have found every single way to squeeze every ounce of power from it, we will move on to the next shiny cycle to repeat, extort and abuse. It’s in and of itself a cycle, a pattern that will never be broken unless we learn to appreciate change as much as we appreciate safety and stability; because the earth is faulty, that much is obvious, humans take, and we take, and we take and what will happen when we have concurred everything on this planet, in this galaxy? What will happen when there’s no more land for us to colonize and rule?

Is there such a thing as a society where everyone is happy? Probably not, seeing as the thing with opinions are that they’re allowed to be different. But when said opinions directly hurt marginalized groups of people, when they are directly responsible for murder, are they still valid opinions? When you can trace the genocide of an entire group of people back to a person with an opinion, is this persons' opinion still valid? When a hundred of people die because doctors don’t give them proper medical treatment based on an opinion, can it still be regarded as valid?

An opinion formed independently from outside influence, based on what information the individual themselves has gathered, free from emotional attachments based on facts (feelings are a valid thing to take into consideration, but seeing how easily our own brain can trick us into thinking we are experiencing one thing when we’re, in fact are not, is scary and if we only rely on feelings to base our opinions on, that would be based on your own brains confirmation bias because we as humans don’t like to be wrong), is what might be called a valid opinion rooted in truth.

Then we have the question about morality, what is morally wrong and what isn’t? Seeing as this will be the guidelines for how we live our life's I fret that schools don’t teach us enough about this from a young age. What we deem morally correct are something highly personal, even though our society teaches us about some things that we generally seem to agree on; one of these examples being murder.

We as a society can in general agree that murder is wrong, immoral, but why? The active act of robbing someone of their choice, to without consent and with a single (or sometimes multiple) motion erase someone from existence (not entirely of course, seeing as the victims family and friends and every single action the victim has done will affect people, as humans tend to have an enormous influence on each other subconsciously or even concisely as the idea of random isn’t quite applicable to the humans psyche), is generally regarded as highly immoral. Does it have something to do with that people in general fear of the true nothingness that is death?

Humans are afraid of things we do not know, and we certainly don’t know death, at all. It is something mysterious, but maybe it isn’t. Death might just be the state when your brain stops processing your surroundings, when your consciousness stops existing. Why are humans obsessed with death? Maybe because we know that our days on this earth are numbered, our mortal lives will eventually come to an end. So why do we insist on hating other people?

Wouldn’t that be considered as a significant waste of time? To spend our numbered days on this planet insisting that our hate is rooted in love. In the end it will always be hate that is the root of our misery on this earth, as well as the fear of what we do not understand. Humans strive to understand the impossible, yet we seem to also resent it.

Words can hurt as much, if not more, than actions sometimes. And often the words will slowly nest itself into our brains, seeking a place to find permanent residence in, and we will let them. Because we are the only enemies we ever seem to lose to, as we are our own worst critic as well as our own best friend.

We can only see the world from our own perspective, we can’t swap minds with someone to see how they view the world, and regardless of how much we might try, we can’t ever understand all the complex threads that makes a person, but we sure as hell will try. Opinions are formed through life experience, so when we only have our own lives to base our opinions on, all of our opinions will automatically be biased in some way.

Then we have the concept of normality, that some things are normal and some things are not. What would you describe normal as? The opinion of the majority or the common trends we see in people? Why would we as a society group normal and good and safe in the same category? Normal is a synonym for common, and I would like to argue that only uncommon people have been able to contribute to change.

Is change a good thing? Or should we prioritize safety and stability? In today's world, I would like to reason that change is needed. While money and power rule the world, those without it will not be able to live as successful, or at least as influential, as the rich. What even is success? The definition of success today can be traced back to money, as humans desire to be in control of themselves and things around them. And without money, we are dependent on society to help us out, we’ll never afford everything that we want, and that’s just how it is.

The economy in the world is one of the most important topics in today's world, and that might just be because it is, in the end, the foundation of our modern society, and it’s been that way for an extended period of time.

The ones with money, if they do not go out of their way to do so, will never understand the ones without it, the privileged will do whatever it takes to stay privileged, and when the less privileged defend themselves society will, maybe to spare their own consciousness, find a way to blame them for their own misery.

In the beginning it was the church, finding ways to get as many as possible to join them, and by doing, so they gained power. With this power they evaded taxes, murdered, repressed womens' rights (in for example old Norse cultures women where regarded as, if not the stronger gender, at least equal to men), and found ways to alienate whole sexual identities, as well as justify slavery.

Today, it is still the remaining influence of the Abraham religions had on society that justifies the alienation of human beings from society. Poland and Russia are starting to draw back on their progress of rights for the LGBTQ+ community, and homosexuality is still met with the death penalty in some places, of course, even in progressive countries' homophobia is common, and insensitive people will always exist in society, I’m afraid, seeing as it was built on ignorance.

Pushing the American people to “settle” for a president is a, if I may so myself, stupid system. As of today, it’s election day in America, and now people are fearing for their own civil rights! It’s quite outrageous. Only a bit over half of the people in America vote in the normal elections (this year, it will probably be higher than that seeing the huge Trump vs. Biden situation), and if it was that way in, for example my country, the whole democracy would fall apart.

We clearly see the small amount of value that peoples own opinions against the overwhelming amount of power that politicians hold in elections, and we also see the clear desperation and willingness to do whatever it takes to keep oneselfs' power.

No one in a free nation, no less in a democracy should have to fear for their safety on the basis of anything to do with things out of their control.

[timesofnewsindia]

Supreme Court in historic judgment on the 150 year old ban on 'LGBT'

You're most likely used to hearing the expression "LGBT," yet "LGBTI" may be different to you.

Nearly one in every 2,000 people is born with variations in reproductive or sexual anatomy, or has a chromosome pattern that doesn’t fit with what is typically considered male or female. Being intersex isn't as uncommon as you may think, yet it is a condition imperceptible to untouchables, and a few people don't find they are intersex until the point when they achieve adolescence.

In 2010, Saroj Nimkarn and Maria New wrote that, "Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association, career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood, maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become" masculinized in women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.[12] Medical intervention to prevent such traits has been likened by Dreger, Feder and Tamar-Mattis to a means of preventing homosexuality and "uppity women" The third International Intersex Forum, held in November/December 2013, made statements for the first time on sex and gender registration in the Malta declaration:

To register intersex children as females or males, with the awareness that, like all people, they may grow up to identify with a different sex or gender. To ensure that sex or gender classifications are amendable through a simple administrative procedure at the request of the individuals concerned. All adults and capable minors should be able to choose between female (F), male (M), non-binary or multiple options. In the future, as with race or religion, sex or gender should not be a category on birth certificates or identification documents for anybody.

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions states that the legal recognition of intersex people is firstly about access to the same rights as other men and women, when assigned male or female; secondly it is about access to administrative corrections to legal documents when an original sex assignment is not appropriate; and thirdly it is not about the creation of a third sex or gender classification for intersex people as a population but it is, instead, about self-determination.

“Consensual same-sex conduct is criminalized in more than 70 countries, with punishment including fines, flogging, and imprisonment and in seven countries, the death penalty”. “Freedom House believes that LGBTI rights are a fundamental part of human rights. Through our programs and advocacy, we work closely with regional partners to fight discrimination and advance LGBTI human rights, and include coverage of global LGBTI human rights in our reports and analyses. Freedom House’s "Dignity for All: LGBTI Assistance Program" provides emergency funding, advocacy and security support for human rights defenders and civil society organizations that are under threat or attack because of their work on LGBTI human rights”.

The judgment, by a Constitution seat of the nation's best court, has defanged the British-period Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which regarded that gay sex is a culpable offense. Presently, it is not any more an offense under Section 377 to take part in consensual gay sex in private. Sexual action between individuals of a similar sex is legitimate yet same-sex couples lawfully can't wed or acquire a common association. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized homosexuality by announcing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court collectively decided that individual self-sufficiency, closeness, and character are ensured crucial rights. Since 2014, transgender individuals in India have been permitted to change their sexual orientation without sex reassignment medical procedure, and have a sacred ideal to enlist themselves under a third sex. In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court ended Section 377, a controversial British-era law that criminalises gay sex in India. The Supreme Court reversed its own 2013 decision and while reading out the verdict, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, "LGBT community possesses rights like others. Majoritarian views and popular morality cannot dictate constitutional rights." With this verdict, India entered the list of countries where homosexuality is legal.In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court ended Section 377, a controversial British-era law that criminalises gay sex in India.

[scripthistory]

Hello love! So, I have two gay characters in the mid 1800s living in the English countryside. How realistic would it be for them to live a life together? I'm imagining a farm in the middle of nowhere, only a few friends, keeping to themselves...

Hi there, Nonny! While it’s sweet of you to begin your ask with “love”, maybe at least buy me coffee first! Joking aside, as nice as it is with terms of endearment I do aim to keep a certain level of professionalism. You wouldn’t begin an email to your professor with “love”, I hope? Anyway, let’s not dwell on this, onto you excellent question!

In short, it could be very realistic for your characters to do this. It’s complicated, however, and I shall try to explain.

The time period you’ve chosen for your story is an interesting period in time when it comes to same gender relationships. In the early 1700s, it became more common for men to live alone or share apartments while finding work in the growing cities. These expanding cities offered anonymity and the possibility for men to live as bachelors either alone or together with another man rather than acquiring a farm or business and marrying a woman. In the mid 1700s, a subculture of men who had sexual relations with other men began to form in northern Europe. Unfortunately, the more visible these men became, the more they were prosecuted. [1]

Does this mean your characters would live together in the city, more realistically? Possibly, yes, but fear not! We’re not done yet!

The early 1800s still saw a lot of prosecutions towards the so called “sodomites”, but this was a much less public affair and the law enforcement tried to handle it as quietly and discreetly as possible. It was also difficult to actually prove sodomy. [2] Someone would have to be caught in the act, so to speak.

Unlike earlier in European history, however, it had become an identity rather than an act. In England men who had sex with other men were referred to as “womanhaters” (and someone accused of sodomy would defend themselves saying they loved their wife or fiance very much). [3] This means that your characters would likely be careful of what kind of relationship they have. It would make sense for them to actually have a relationship, though, since homosexuality had become more of a identity. The Victorian Era also saw a rise in marrying for love and it also was not at all uncommon, especially for middle or upper class, to have very emotionally intense relationships with close same gender friends. A lot of passionate letters were written during this time.

So, your character could be very close and it wouldn’t really be questioned.

Homosexual men also built communities at this time. Though the lines between gender expression and expressing sexual preference are difficult to draw, it seems it was not uncommon for men who had sex with men to wear dresses or otherwise display what was seen as “effeminate behaviour”.

By the mid nineteenth century, Manchester men had formed a network that regularly put on fancy dress balls. [4]

This means that there was a subculture for homosexual men and it wouldn’t be unlikely for your characters to be part of such a community and meet.

Onto the mid nineteenth century and late nineteenth century! By this time there were two sides to the discourse on sex. One on side there were the social purity advocates who argued for restraint, even within marriage. On the other side were those who believed in Darwinism and that humans were a kind of animal and thus sexual urges were natural though they should still be controlled. [5] You question, though, Nonny, was about homosexual men and this part of the discourse on sex was much more bleak. As the 1800s continued, punishments became more and more severe for homosexual men. At the same time, however, these men spoke out more and more boldly about their desires as natural and healthy. [6] Therefore, your characters live in a time where on one hand they risked prosecution for sodomy but on the other hand they wouldn’t necessarily hide their homosexuality behind a marriage to a woman. Unless the story takes place later than 1885 when homosexuality rather than the act of sodomy became punishable.

Finally, let’s remember philosopher, poet and homosexual rights activist Edward Carpenter who “celebrated ‘homogenic’ love as part of his wider socialist vision; he retreated to the countryside with his working-class male lover, wore sandals, and ate vegetarian food.”[7] Your characters, then, may very well live together in the countryside! Keep in mind, though, that while they may have friends, they might be ostracised by the nearest village or town especially by working-class men who showed a lot of hatred towards homosexual men.[8] So give your characters a nice place to live and a few like-minded friends and then decide if they get a happy ever after or if they wind up prosecuted.

And there we are; at the end of this little journey! 

To summarise:

“Sodomy” was punishable by law throughout the 1800s.

In the early 1800s, unmarried men living together became more and more common but this was mostly true for larger cities and not small towns or the countryside.

By the mid and late 1800s more and more people began to speak up about the right to live a homosexual life. Sodomy was still illegal, though. 

In the later 1800s, it wasn’t impossible for two men to live together, be it in a city, town or out on the countryside. They still risked prosecution and were likely to be ostracised by society. 

1837–1901 was he Victorian era and the view on sex and sexuality was most ambivalent. Purity was advocated but not by all as the other side of the argument was for a more liberated view on sex. Close and very romantic like friendships were nothing unusual for middle and especially upper class but sexual encounters were strictly regulated both by norm and law.

Some important details on sodomy, homosexuality and British Law:

1828: the Buggery Act 1533was replaced by Offences against the Person Act 1828.

1835: the last two men to be executed for sodomy in Britain. 

1861: the death penalty for sodomy was abolished.

1885: The British Parliament enacted section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, known as the Labouchere Amendment which prohibited gross indecency between males. This is when it was first possible to prosecute homosexual even when sodomy was not suspected or could not be proven.

Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I hope this was helpful! Good luck with your writing!

Signed, Captain.

[1] Anna Clark, Desire: A History of European Sexuality. (New York: Routledge, 2008) ,134 & 136. 

[2] ibid.136.

[3] ibid.

[4] 137.

[5] 149-150.

[6] 152.

[7] 153.

[8] 138-139.

[djgblogger-blog]

For LGBTI employees, working overseas can be a lonely, frustrating and even dangerous experience

http://bit.ly/2A3TK1M

In Indonesia, severe public penalties are inflicted upon people found to be in same-sex relationships. Beawiharta Beawiharta/Reuters

As the number of workers taking international assignments increases, companies have more responsibility to look after their LGBTI employees who face persecution while on assignment.

Russia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are becoming some of the most challenging expatriate assignment destinations for multinational firms, according to relocation business BGRS. This is in part because these countries advocate the death penalty for homosexuality. Other popular assignment destinations include Brazil, India, China, Mexico and Turkey, and these countries exhibit less sensitivity to homosexuality.

International assignments among multinational corporations have increased by 25% since 2000 and the number is expected to reach more than 50% growth through 2020.

The opportunity for LGBTI expatriates and their respective families to be part of an intra-company transfer is statistically likely. Worldwide, the LGBTI population is estimated to be between 1-in-10 and 1-in-20 of the adult population, and over 200 million people worldwide live and work in a country other than their country of origin.

LGBTI employees relocating for a foreign assignment are likely to experience additional hardships compared to the typical expatriate. It’s not uncommon for a destination country to refuse spousal visas if same-sex marriage is not legal in that country.

Likewise, access to healthcare and other benefits can be restricted for those relocating as a same-sex couple. In their study about LGBTI expatriates in dangerous locations, Ruth McPhail and Yvonne McNulty highlighted an interview with one LGBTI expatriate who experienced difficulty in gaining a spousal visa in Indonesia:

I knew my wife would never get a spousal visa in Indonesia; my experience had prepared me for that. So instead I wanted to be guaranteed two things: firstly that my wife could come and stay at least 90 days at a time with multiple entry, and second that if there was a medical evacuation or civil strife situation that we would be evacuated as a family. These two matters were more important to me than what type of visa we were allocated.

On a daily basis, a lack of access to or interaction with other LGBTI families may be common among LGBTI expatriates, and “fitting in” is not always guaranteed. From a career perspective, LGBTI people may face a difficult workplace climate, a perceived lack of career opportunities or status at work.

For example, research shows that lesbians are faced with unique challenges for their career development. These include identifying the right job, and finding a way to get the job and develop on the job. This can easily stifle their potential.

Taking all of this into account, the experience of LGBTI employees on international assignment can be a frustrating and lonely experience. As a result, LGBTI employees may not accept international assignments in the first instance, out of fear of being stigmatised, unsupported or discriminated against by colleagues and the legal system in the host country.

Helping LGBTI employees on assignment overseas

In the end, multinational companies have two choices. One is to turn a blind eye to the challenges faced by LGBTI employees and subsequently suffer the consequences of premature assignment returns and failed assignment costs. The other is taking an equally challenging path by acknowledging the challenges and concentrating on efforts to support LGBTI people through their international assignment experience.

The Williams Institute found that some multinational companies are leading the way by adopting policies specific to LGBTI people. They are reporting improved employee morale and productivity as a result.

If companies are aware that these issues deter LGBTI employees from considering international assignments in the first place, there are effective support mechanisms to use. One option is to map out an LGBTI employee’s career and where that fits with their life goals, because these influence their experience overseas.

Whether or not the employee chooses to disclose their sexual orientation could also affect their assignment overseas. These needs should be weighed up relative to the degree of assignment difficulty.

During an assignment companies can provide additional support to mitigate liabilities, like offering a voluntary reassignment or the option to return home prematurely. As with any good support system, the lines of communication must go both ways.

Multinational corporations have a duty of care to the LGBTI community to ensure that their international assignment experiences maintain a suitable level of support.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.