History is not Linear

[Note: it is actually rather hard to do a very condensed overview of these chapters that are of less interest to the Project. I’m trying to get much more high-level for these last few chapters.]

A 1957 committee considered potential changes to the legal treatment of “vices”. One goal of the changes was to keep activities in this category, such as prostitution and homosexuality, out of public view. Even decriminalization was not intended for the benefit of the accused, but to suppress knowledge of the activities.

This process included a shift from addressing “homosexual acts” to concerning itself with homosexual people, though only the former were criminalized, and “homosexual” was tacitly understood as referring only to men. Lesbians, when considered, were treated as analogues to gay men, but with the awareness that lesbian acts were not illegal as such. Even though lesbianism was discussed by the committee, it was deliberately excluded from the conclusions. Even the offense of “indecent assault by a female on a female,” though included in detailed lists of offenses, was omitted from summaries of the resulting laws. The report itself claimed that no case of such an act had been found.

At the same time, girls—far more often than boys—might be detained in institutions for “moral danger,” under which umbrella lesbianism could be silently categorized. The lack of laws against lesbianism, as such, did not mean that women were not prosecuted for being perceived as lesbians.

In general, the tide was shifting to a view that people’s private lives were not the law’s concert. But not all people or activities were considered to fall within the category of “private” for this purpose. Certain sexual activities were still considered to have public consequences and be a public concern (e.g., the category of “moral danger”). To the extent that this shift began decriminalizing sex between men, its purpose was to impose the same silencing and hiding from public awareness that had long been applied to lesbianism. To the extent lesbianism was brought up in deliberations, it was to note the injustice of prosecuting homosexual conduct only for men and not women. The hazard of this line of argument was a growing discussion of penalizing lesbianism, rather than removing penalties from male homosexuality. But the details of these discussions and arguments were largely omitted from the final report. There is a continuing thread in the evidence that lesbianism was not considered of concern because it was functionally invisible. Prior suppression of the visibility and awareness of lesbianism now meant that those debating the laws had little data on which to base arguments.

[Note: we are now moving on into the 40s and 50s.]

Medical models of homosexuality were shifting from a “congenital invert” model to a Freudian psychological one. A psychological approach lead to greater interest in medical “treatments.” [Note: A medical approach did not mean a beneveolent one. Keep in mind that medical “treatment” in this era included lobotomy and chemical castration.]

Situational lesbianism, e.g., during wartime organizations, was a concern, but excused as long as the “right type of women” were involved and their relationships weren’t seen as preventing a return to heterosexuality. Female, military branches needed to address lesbianism because, although not illegal, it was against military discipline. At the same time, there was pressure, not to officially recognize lesbianism as a visible concern. Silence was considered a useful preventive measure—the old “don’t give them ideas” approach. Such practices as sharing beds and displays of physical affection could be dismissed as “normal working-class customs” among women.

In the postwar period, some new archetypes of lesbianism arose. One was the image of lesbians as “marriage breakers,” although hard evidence of prevalence of this phenomenon was scarce. Divorce courts were eager to accept that even same-sex relationships that caused marital discord could be framed as “friendships.” Another archetype was the violent “unnatural friendship” in which “morbid affections” and jealousies led to violence and criminality. Though lesbianism couldn’t be the core of the prosecution, it might be considered as a contributing cause and aggravating factor that led to enhanced penalties.

By the 60s, social visibility was increasingly hard to suppress. The reforms of the 1967 “Sexual Offenses Act”, though superficially more tolerant, actually resulted in increased prosecution. But male and female homosexuals were beginning to make common clause, alongside second wave feminism, and this resulted in the law beginning to address male and female homosexuality in parallel, but often to the detriment of lesbians.