Scan barcode
wolfdyke's review against another edition
2.0
I admire what Rupp tried to do here, and she clearly did a lot of research, but a far more accurate subtitle for this book would be "A Global History of Sex Between People With Vaginas".
In chronicling "love between women", Rupp includes numerous examples of (1) sex between women that had nothing to do with love and (2) sex and / or love where everyone involved was assigned female at birth, but one or more were not women.
(1) Rupp describes many instances of women who have sex with other women, but do so without any evidence of attraction to women (cultural sexual initiation, concubines who pleasured each other, prostitutes, et cetera). I recognize that, while these instances might not involve queer *people*, they are without a doubt part of queer *history*. The concept of sexuality as an identity is incredibly modern, and the cultural awareness of and attitude toward non-heterosexual sex deserves a place in the queer history books. However, considering that stated goal of this book is to be a history of "lesbianism" and the fact that it's entitled "*love* between women", I wonder whether these instances should have been included. At the very least, I wonder if they should have taken up as many pages in the book as they did.
There are many instances throughout history of women who deeply loved each other in a romantic sense, but either they never had sex / expressed physical desire for each other, or else the evidence of this has been lost to time. These relationships have been largely excluded from Rupp's sapphic history.
Additionally, I take issue with the way Rupp narrates relationships such as that between Benedetta Carlini and Bartolomea Crivelli, where one of the two women involved is recorded as saying that the relationship was nonconsensual. It is certainly true that many willing participants in same-sex relationships throughout the ages would, upon being found out, lie and say that they were forced into the relationship in order to escape or minimize their punishment. However, it is impossible for Rupp, or any historian, to know the truth. For this reason I find it disrespectful and irresponsible that Rupp dismisses the possibility that Bartolomea (and those like her) were not lying about what they experienced; I can be convinced that Benedetta Carlini should be included in a history of sapphic women, but not without full and proper acknowledgement that she may have pressured Bartolomea into their sexual relationship.
(2) Even more disrespectful, Rupp frequently includes in her history of “love between women” people who were assigned female at birth but were almost certainly not women. I again recognize that queer identity has changed and still changes based on time and place, however a non-zero amount of historical “lesbians” Rupp describes were individuals who repeatedly expressed that they were not women, that they wished to be exclusively referred to as men even after death, that they would not acknowledge anyone or anything that referred to them as women. Rupp’s dismissal of historical transgender men’s wishes by including them in her book is incredibly distressing. Even more so when she ignores the individuals whose non-woman gender identity or expression was part of an important or sacred cultural practice.
Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of historical transgender women who loved women, of which a dedicated researcher (of the kind that Rupp appears to be) can find several. Transgender women deserve to be included in a history of sapphic women just as much as cisgender women do, and certainly more than transgender men do.
Based on what she chose to include and exclude in her history, I can only assume that Rupp (1) lacks any respect for transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary people (2) lacks any respect for non-white cultures and traditions in which non-traditional gender expression and identity was exhibited and (3) considers the physical act of sex the ultimate symbol of queerness, based on her inclusion of sex between women without love and her exclusion of love between women without sex.
In chronicling "love between women", Rupp includes numerous examples of (1) sex between women that had nothing to do with love and (2) sex and / or love where everyone involved was assigned female at birth, but one or more were not women.
(1) Rupp describes many instances of women who have sex with other women, but do so without any evidence of attraction to women (cultural sexual initiation, concubines who pleasured each other, prostitutes, et cetera). I recognize that, while these instances might not involve queer *people*, they are without a doubt part of queer *history*. The concept of sexuality as an identity is incredibly modern, and the cultural awareness of and attitude toward non-heterosexual sex deserves a place in the queer history books. However, considering that stated goal of this book is to be a history of "lesbianism" and the fact that it's entitled "*love* between women", I wonder whether these instances should have been included. At the very least, I wonder if they should have taken up as many pages in the book as they did.
There are many instances throughout history of women who deeply loved each other in a romantic sense, but either they never had sex / expressed physical desire for each other, or else the evidence of this has been lost to time. These relationships have been largely excluded from Rupp's sapphic history.
Additionally, I take issue with the way Rupp narrates relationships such as that between Benedetta Carlini and Bartolomea Crivelli, where one of the two women involved is recorded as saying that the relationship was nonconsensual. It is certainly true that many willing participants in same-sex relationships throughout the ages would, upon being found out, lie and say that they were forced into the relationship in order to escape or minimize their punishment. However, it is impossible for Rupp, or any historian, to know the truth. For this reason I find it disrespectful and irresponsible that Rupp dismisses the possibility that Bartolomea (and those like her) were not lying about what they experienced; I can be convinced that Benedetta Carlini should be included in a history of sapphic women, but not without full and proper acknowledgement that she may have pressured Bartolomea into their sexual relationship.
(2) Even more disrespectful, Rupp frequently includes in her history of “love between women” people who were assigned female at birth but were almost certainly not women. I again recognize that queer identity has changed and still changes based on time and place, however a non-zero amount of historical “lesbians” Rupp describes were individuals who repeatedly expressed that they were not women, that they wished to be exclusively referred to as men even after death, that they would not acknowledge anyone or anything that referred to them as women. Rupp’s dismissal of historical transgender men’s wishes by including them in her book is incredibly distressing. Even more so when she ignores the individuals whose non-woman gender identity or expression was part of an important or sacred cultural practice.
Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of historical transgender women who loved women, of which a dedicated researcher (of the kind that Rupp appears to be) can find several. Transgender women deserve to be included in a history of sapphic women just as much as cisgender women do, and certainly more than transgender men do.
Based on what she chose to include and exclude in her history, I can only assume that Rupp (1) lacks any respect for transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary people (2) lacks any respect for non-white cultures and traditions in which non-traditional gender expression and identity was exhibited and (3) considers the physical act of sex the ultimate symbol of queerness, based on her inclusion of sex between women without love and her exclusion of love between women without sex.
redavisyoung's review against another edition
2.0
While this book made some interesting points, the exclusion of transwomen in a history of lesbianism is inexcusable. What's worse may be the author's complete side-stepping of the issue, obfuscating the transmisogynist politics at play. Overall, I'm shocked anyone could make a topic this interesting seem so boring.
ash_thelibrarian_reads's review
As a history grad I usually love this kind of writing and even though I am extremely into this topic I could not get into the book at this time. Maybe I’ll try again sometime.
talypollywaly's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Wonderful and informative book. Devoured the bibilography. Wished there were a bit more info on indigenous identities (Native Hawaiian, Aboriginal, etc), but I understand colonization has made that impossible. However, mythological literature was included in the first section, so why not fill gaps that way? Ended up feeling a bit incomplete to me for that reason, so I can't give it 5 stars.