Affection in Lizzie's Times

[augusta]

I'm not so sure that being a homosexual in Victorian times was such taboo. It was known to exist. And gay men dressed a little more colorfully than straight men. I read about this subject not too long ago, I think in an article I found online. It was fascinating.

Women were always touching each other, hugging, hand holding, kissing in greeting publicly. In photos of the era, you do see a lot of that. Young unmarried women were not discouraged, according to what I read, of having intimate encounters with another unmarried woman. It was looked at as they were seeing what things were all about and preparing for marriage. They were advised to keep it discreet, but it wasn't an absolute taboo like we may think it was then. Not to say that it was totally accepted by the majority.

Lizzie had a lot of unmarried girlfriends. Instead of being sexually confused or frustrated, she could have been pretty darned content.

If women never married a man and took on a female spouse, it was called a "Boston Marriage". (I think I posted about this earlier...)

More info would be fascinating.

[Susan]

I'm sure there is tons more out there, but, this is what I found on a quick search:

Subversive Practices: "Marriage-Like" and Marriage Resistant
Before the current wave of same-sex unions, Americans formed a range of extra legal partnerships that included common domicile, financial interdependence, sexual relations, and/or parenting, sometimes by crossing genders. For example, some Native American men who felt or dreamed that their true identity was female could wear women’s clothes, work at women’s tasks, and marry men. Although not culturally institutionalized, gender crossing occurred among settlers, as well. Thus a "Mrs. Nash" who married several soldiers in the nineteenth-century West turned out, at death, to be male. At the time, newspapers frequently ran stories about women who passed as men, often to earn wages, some of whom married women. In upstate New York, Lucy Ann Lobdell became Reverend Joseph Lobdell and lived for a decade with his wife, Maria Perry. In the twentieth century, midwestern jazz musician Billy Tipton, born a woman, married several times and raised children who did not know that their father was a woman until his death (1).


Men or women who retained their gender identity also established marriage-like relationships in the era before homosexual identity. They exchanged rings or set up common domicile, such as Boston Marriages, so named because so many educated women paired off in that city at the turn of the twentieth century. These women often owned property jointly, planned their travels together, shared family celebrations, and usually slept in the same bed. Cultural assumptions of asexuality tended to protect them from scandal. Male lifelong companions, such as Harvard professor F.O. Matthiessen and his lover, Russell Cheney, however, could not escape the increasing stigma associated with homosexuality. When gay and lesbian subcultures formed in large cities in the twentieth century, the opportunities for same-sex unions expanded, along with explicitly sexual identities. Among lesbians, "butch-femme" couples often paired off, and at least some "married." In Harlem during the 1920s, African American lesbians staged large weddings, complete with bridesmaids and even marriage licenses--when a gay man applied at city hall as the surrogate for a lesbian "groom" (2).

Not all heterosexual couples, however, formally married. During the nineteenth century, informal marriage was common in the southern back country, while African American slaves could not legally marry. For some urban working-class couples, common-law marriage sufficed (3). In addition, utopians and free love advocates, such as Frances Wright, rejected state-sanctioned marriage on principle. "Free love" referred not to sex with multiple partners but to the belief that love, rather than marriage, should be the precondition for sexual relations. In his 1852 tract, Love vs. Marriage, Marx Edgeworth Lazarus argued that just as the state thwarted the individual, so did the "legalized prostitution" of marriage oppress women and suppress love. Highly unpopular, free lovers were arrested for expressing their beliefs. When Lillian Harmon "married" Edwin Walker without blessing of church or state, both were imprisoned (4).

While they pioneered what would later become the practice of cohabitation, the free lovers shared many values with their contemporaries. They formed long-term committed relationships, and most of them condemned homosexual relations as unnatural. By the early twentieth century, anarchist and free lover Emma Goldman reversed the latter judgement by endorsing love in any form, but still rejecting church or state regulation.

From this site: http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2004aug/freedman.html

[augusta]

Thanks for the interesting post, Susan. I get the feeling that it was more accepted in Lizzie's time than the bickering about it today. I think I read that the gay men back then that dressed more colorfully than straight guys were recognized as being gay on sight and - at least the piece I read - said that it was no huge deal when anyone saw the person.

All those marriages you posted about are interesting. It sounded easier for a homosexual back then than it does today.

There was a person in General Custer's 7th Calvary - I can barely remember facts about it. But I think it was a laundress at the fort, and when she died they found out she was a man.

Personally, I wish government would just stay out of the subject all together. I don't think it's their business at all. There are some things - like abortion - that are so personal it should not be a governmental issue. I think these things are between the person and God, if they believe. (Just for the record I am not gay and I would never have an abortion. But I don't think it's any of my business if someone I knew was, or did.)

[Allen]

Homosexuality in Lizzie's time was defnitely not 'easier'. It was something that could totally ruin a person, or bring them down in social standing. Boston marriages were thought to involve no sex between the two females. If society believed there was no sex involved, this does not show social acceptance of lesbianism.

All those stories of woman dressing up as men, and vice versa, why do so many of them end with the fact that it wasn't discovered until after death? I am assuming it was while the body was being made ready for burial. Secrecy until death doesn't show social acceptance, in my opinion is shows the opposite. They were never open about it, so how could society approve?

There were men who dressed colorfully back then who, as it was put, were not made a big deal about. They were called a dandy, a fop, or a dude. These were men who were thought to be overly flashy in dress and mannerisms. It did not necessarily reflect homosexuality. They were considered to be overly vain.

fop (fp) KEY

NOUN:

A man who is preoccupied with and often vain about his clothes and manners; a dandy.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... /entry/fop

dan·dy (dnd) KEY

NOUN:
pl. dan·dies
A man who affects extreme elegance in clothes and manners; a fop.
Something very good or agreeable.
Nautical See yawl.
ADJECTIVE:
dan·di·er , dan·di·est
Suggestive of or attired like a dandy; foppish.
Fine; good.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... ntry/dandy

dude (dd, dyd) KEY

NOUN:

Informal An Easterner or city person who vacations on a ranch in the West.
Informal A man who is very fancy or sharp in dress and demeanor.
Slang
A man; a fellow.
dudes Persons of either sex.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... entry/dude
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Women were not even supposed to take pleasure from heterosexual sex. It did not happen often, but clitoridectomy's were performed in the United States to stop masturbation.

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/duffy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the case of Oscar Wilde. He was prosecuted for homosexuality, served two years at hard labor, and died penniless and lonely.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... /wilde.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boston Marriages:

"In the 19th century, Boston marriage was a term used for households where two women lived together, independent of any male support. Whether these were lesbian relationships—in the sexual sense—is debatable and debated. The likelihood is that some were and some were not. Today, the term is sometimes used when referring to two women living together who are not in a sexual relationship.

The term "Boston marriage" came to be used, apparently, after Henry James' book The Bostonians detailed a marriage-like relationship between two women—"New Women" in the language of the time, women who were independent, not married, self-supporting (which sometimes meant living off inherited wealth or making a living as writers or other professional, educated careers). The play Boston Marriage by David Mamet depicts such a marriage as having an explicitly sexual component.

The term was used long before same-sex marriage was first legalized in Massachusetts, and today two women can legally get married in Boston."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage

"Boston marriages were not considered to be perverted or “homosexual” in their time, because they were assumed to be nonsexual. (Victorians trusted women to maintain a nonsexual long-term relationship, because “proper” women were thought to have almost no sex drive.)



Boston marriage was an essentially feminist relationship—the women chose each other as long-term housemates not only because of the depth of their friendship, but also because marrying a man at the time would lead to a lifetime of servitude. Feminist women wanted to change marriage—but in the meantime, they did not want to partake of the institution as it existed. Boston marriage gave feminist women a home life as they pursued social and legal reform efforts—and thus, Boston marriage was eventually seen as a threat to patriarchy. Psychologists began describing romantic friendship and Boston marriage as “perverted” around the same time as feminists were achieving their most dramatic victories, such as suffrage. "

http://www.celebratefriendship.org/boston.htm

[sguthmann]

my understanding of Victorian society's take on sex was that it was definately not to be celebrated, that it was a dirty, animalistic act that ensured the survival of the species...and that was about it. in fact, some victorians very sincerely believed that the more "seed" a man spilled, the more years it took off his life! orgasm was referred to as "the little death." and look at how menstration was referred to in Lizzie's times ("I had fleas.") - or "the illness," "the disease," etc etc - ?!?

my point is that Victorian society - mainstream victorian society - was not at all comfortable with heterosexual sex or menstration; so i can only guess how much MORE of a tabboo homosexuality would be! sorry, but i cannot accept that the sexual revolution was underway in the victorian era. the 1920s, yes, but not in the times Lizzie was growing up in.

[john]

Well, all this doesn't really matter, and like most, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality if guys don't sit on my lap (gal homosexuals is OK). Thanks, though, for more than I ever wanted to know about the subject.
The point was though, leading to Lizzie's bipolar or what used to be called manic-depressive nature, and some comments on her mood swings, or what we might now know of them would be more helpfull.

[Allen]

Well, all this doesn't really matter, and like most, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality if guys don't sit on my lap (gal homosexuals is OK). Thanks, though, for more than I ever wanted to know about the subject.
The point was though, leading to Lizzie's bipolar or what used to be called manic-depressive nature, and some comments on her mood swings, or what we might now know of them would be more helpfull.

Well John, it's good to know you don't see anything wrong with it. But I don't really see how what you think about it today has anything to do with the way it was thought about then, and if you think it does, then you missed the point of the post. I don't see anything wrong with it either. Posting the opinions held by society in the Victorian Era doesn't mean I'm posting my own opinion. When you say it doesn't have anything to do with anything, that's your opinion, and you're definitely entitled to it. But my opinion is if Lizzie was gay, it might have alot to do with everything.

[Allen]

By the way, I know alot about manic depression, aka bipolar, as I suffer from it myself.

[sguthmann]

like i've said before, major events, powerplays, wars, etc - even murders - usually occur for one or more of these three reasons: power, monetary gain, and "sex" (not just the act, but love, lust, etc). as long as we're exploring one and two with regard to this case, I'd say number three is worth examining as well.

[john]

You've made me think a very lot Allen.
I'm sorry that you have a disorder - I never would have guessed it.
You and I go way back, yet I don't think we've ever had a baddie with one another - remember when I thought you were a guy?
You're right in that my opinion and the general opinion on homosexuality today has nothing to do with 1890. But from the posts, it seems like it was generally accepted, the "gay blades," and women who hung with women, similaliarly as it is today.
I may have even brought the damn subject up, but I don't see how it has anything to do with her killing her Father and Stepmother, and I think the reference was not to her homosexuality (?) but the bipolar.
If she had monster mood swings it could account for a lot - just one example which I was recently discussing with a young man who said I'm "malarky," which isn't so bad since I'm proud to be Irish.
She may have not even have been awares that morning, and that was why she thought she heard her stepmother come in, might have thought she was in the barn, etc. This, as you and I can attribute to is Bipolar, she may have been undiagnosed, easy in that time, and something went on that she may have knew or didn't know about.
Anyway, hope you're cool, Allen.
I have a secret for you in pm.

[Kat]

The question would be: How would Lizzie or Emma's sexual proclivity influence the crimes?
Are there specifics that people can come up with?

We also know that people suffered mental illness in those days as best they could, probably most untreated. So that should also be considered, since the subject was raised- but again, how would that influence the crime?

[john]

Good word Kat.

[john]

"Preference" would be my choice of words.

[DWilly]

The question would be: How would Lizzie or Emma's sexual proclivity influence the crimes?
Are there specifics that people can come up with?

Since we know so little about Lizzie or Emma it's a bit tough to come up with anything specific. All I can offer up is what I think may have happened. Now, if Lizzie was a lesbian I doubt it was the motive for the murders. In my opinion money and self-determination are what motivated Lizzie and Emma. I do however think Lizzie's lesbianism may have contributed to some of her frustrations that were quickly mounting and that may have effected her emotionally making it more likely she'd commit murder. Both women were miserable in that house and neither of them saw much of a future. Lizzie herself echoed that frustration in her comment about how Abby was of the type that "never die." Lizzie and Emma were not getting any younger and they were getting sick of waiting for Andrew and Abby to die naturally.

Now add to this sense of financial and lifestyle frustration the added frustration of not understanding many of your emotional feelings. Lizzie may have tried to love men but could never quite get there. She was confused about thoughts and feelings that went through her mind when she was perhaps with Alice Russell or Anna Borden etc. Like many who are gay maybe she started to hate herself. That emotional turmoil may have made her more vulnerable to acting out. It's possible that Lizzie may have been a very passionate woman whose needs were being unmet and she became even more temperamental than she already was.

[john]

Good try DWilly, but socially looking at the family, a house without a bathtub is probably going to smell almost as bad as the people who live in it, and I can't imagine a suitor in calling for Lizzie or Emma stopping more than once, and then probably briefly.
Also, don't get me wrong about my 'woman driver' declaration. It was an example of how statistics can be totally off-base. And too, the slavery comment. The protesters about anything are approximately 80% women, so that fact alone can be used in many different ways as you saw if you open-mindedly looked at the statement.
Here's a good topic - someone recently posted that Mrs. Borden (? probably her) was having guests on Monday as fact - who were those guests to be? Supposedly that was a reason she was cleaning up the guest room. What if that lured her to the guest room. This has been gone over before in part, but is interesting; of course I'm interested in ants and clouds and old lanterns.

[sguthmann]

i don't believe being a homosexual or being bipolar is, in and of itself, a sufficient reason for the murders. either may have played some part, but I cannot accept either as a complete explanation and solution for what happened.

a note on being bipolar - mood swings, yes; hallucinations and "blackouts," no. if so, she was suffering from something much more serious, something psychotic. and true, alcohol and drugs are often misused to mask or self-medicate a host of mental illnesses, including bi-polar, but i've yet to see sufficient proof that either of those abuses were even taking place in the case of Lizzie.

[Kat]

I'm appreciating an attempt to give us a concrete way in which sexual orientation to the same sex would influence the murders in any way. So thanks DWilly.
Could that orientation influence the choice of weapon used?
That might be another concrete example.

[Allen]

I'm appreciating an attempt to give us a concrete way in which sexual orientation to the same sex would influence the murders in any way. So thanks DWilly.
Could that orientation influence the choice of weapon used?
That might be another concrete example.

Sometimes I get a little frustrated with the fact that many are willing to believe there may have been a boyfriend who killed for Lizzie because Andrew disapproved of him and didn't want them to see each other. So the boyfriend got frustrated, or Lizzie got frustrated, and killed Andrew and Abby. There are those who find this theory most compelling. But those same people cannot understand how Lizzie possibly having a girlfriend, or proving to be a lesbian, would've had anything to do with the murders. That just totally baffles my mind. Would Andrew, a proud 70 year old man of righteous quaker stock who was definitiely set in his own ways, have approved of Lizzie being a lesbian? Would Abby have approved? Could it have caused tension? Could it have caused Andrew to forbid Lizzie to ever have had anything to do with a woman again or he would disinherit her or toss her out? Would all of society at that time have approved? If they would've have approved I don't think it would've set so many tongues wagging when Lizzie was friends with Nance. And they weren't saying nice things. They weren't saying it's ok if she is having sex with Nance. I'm pretty much thinking they were talking about her being a murdering kleptomaniac lesbian who had a few screws loose. So I think that DWilly's explaination rings most true.

[john]

There is no evidence that Lizzie was a lesbian, or a klepto, and she was acquitted of being a murderer.

[Allen]

There is no evidence that Lizzie was a lesbian, or a klepto, and she was acquitted of being a murderer.

So you're saying that the people of Fall River never talked about Lizzie behind her back, because there was no evidence?

[DWilly]

There is no evidence that Lizzie was a lesbian, or a klepto, and she was acquitted of being a murderer.

Well, that depends on what you consider evidence of being a lesbian. Some people will point to Lizzie's relationship with Nance and say that is evidence of her being a lesbian. I can't think of a whole lot of evidence that she was heterosexual. Can you?

As for the acquittal, well back in the 50's, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milan were acquitted in Mississippi for the murder of Emmett Till. Shortly after that they sold their story to Look magazine and admitted they murdered him. And of course, there's good old O.J.

[theebmonique]

And...Barbara Graham...except that she wasn't guilty but was convicted.


Tracy...

[john]

Why are you people so fixed on homosexuality? Look at it realistically - as I stated before I don't care at all about homosexuality, but I would consider it if it were in the window. It's not. If Lizzie was gay for one thing, it would have been known in the town and there would have been a horiffic backlash to that after the murders, and there wasn't. Every other time she appeared in the news including the shoplifting references, there would have been reference by what then was a homofobic press, and there wasn't. Even at her death, and the death of Emma whom by your standards would stand convicted of lesbian as well, there was no mention. Lizzie had one friend whom she admired who was homosexual, but she was a stage person attracting a variety of people to Lizzie. I'd hang with Leonardio DeCaprio if he was gay so that I could meet Meg Ryan.

[sguthmann]

I'm appreciating an attempt to give us a concrete way in which sexual orientation to the same sex would influence the murders in any way. So thanks DWilly.
Could that orientation influence the choice of weapon used?
That might be another concrete example.

Love, whether it be homo or heterosexual, is still love, and a relationship be it same-sex or not, is still a relationship. Love and its relationships have certainly led more than a few people to murder, and so that for me is concrete enough to merit looking at. For me, the point of bringing this topic up repeatedly is not "was she or wasn't she a lesbian," but merely a reminder to look at a possible motive or contributing factor from all angles. Since one cannot know that she was or wasn't - and to me it really doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things - but if ANY relationship had bearing on this murder, any possibilities should be explored.

As for the weapon of choice in a crime, I don't think it points to sexual orientation, but more to the relationship between the vicitim(s) and the perp. In this case, the method of killing speaks of an "up close and personal" relationship between the killer(s) and Andrew and Abby. The method of this kill, the placement of the wounds, and the setting all lead me to believe that the killer(s) was quite familiar with the victims and the house.

The boldness of the Borden murders strikes me as fairly incredible even in this day and age - in the victim's home, during the day, on a traveled street, with other persons close by both in/outside the residence, with persons out of the residence who could return at any time, with an instrument that places the victim and killer mere feet from each other...this is someone who felt very confident in what they were doing, and confident that they could get away with murder. Looks like that confidence was well placed.

[DWilly]

Why are you people so fixed on homosexuality? Look at it realistically - as I stated before I don't care at all about homosexuality, but I would consider it if it were in the window. It's not. If Lizzie was gay for one thing, it would have been known in the town and there would have been a horiffic backlash to that after the murders, and there wasn't. Every other time she appeared in the news including the shoplifting references, there would have been reference by what then was a homofobic press, and there wasn't. Even at her death, and the death of Emma whom by your standards would stand convicted of lesbian as well, there was no mention. Lizzie had one friend whom she admired who was homosexual, but she was a stage person attracting a variety of people to Lizzie. I'd hang with Leonardio DeCaprio if he was gay so that I could meet Meg Ryan.

If Lizzie had had a boyfriend it would have been all over the town and it wasn't.

As for the lesbianism, well, in Victoria Lincoln's book she mentions that there were some people in Fall River who talked about Lizzie and Nance being lovers.

That said, if Lizzie were a lesbian she would have kept quite as did most gays of that era. The press also would have said nothing. Back then people looked the other way. They did the same thing if a married man had a mistress. For the most part the press said nothing on the subject.

Btw, you haven't shown me that Lizzie was straight. Do you have any proof she was? Or are you "fixed" on her being straight?

[john]

Now do we have to show "proof" that we are straight?

[john]

Who started this gay junk anyway - David Kent?

[Kat]

If you're saying, sguthmann, that frustration in love is frustration in love, no matter the person or partner, I do agree. I think that as well.
But if we have the benefit of someone or someones (plural) view of an impact any of our character's sexual orientation might have on the who, what, where or why of the crime, then I agree it's worth hearing about- being educated about, maybe I should say.

The possibility that only 10% of the population is homosexually orientated limits the odds that our Lizzie was a lesbian, but it's still worth a hearing. I still don't know if it matters. That's why I ask for examples.

[Allen]

Can I ask where the statistics for the 10% of the population being homosexually oriented came from?

[DWilly]

If you're saying, sguthmann, that frustration in love is frustration in love, no matter the person or partner, I do agree. I think that as well.
But if we have the benefit of someone or someones (plural) view of an impact any of our character's sexual orientation might have on the who, what, where or why of the crime, then I agree it's worth hearing about- being educated about, maybe I should say.

The possibility that only 10% of the population is homosexually orientated limits the odds that our Lizzie was a lesbian, but it's still worth a hearing. I still don't know if it matters. That's why I ask for examples.

No matter what the percentage is that doesn't mean Lizzie couldn't fall into it. She could very well be in that 10%.

As I said before I don't think lesbianism was the motive. I don't think at that time Lizzie had a lover male or female. I think money and being able to live the lifestyle she wanted was the motive for Lizzie. That is just my opinion for now.

I do think being a closeted and pent up lesbian effected Lizzie emotionally. She was confused and didn't understand her emotions. She had no outlet and her feelings of frustration mounted. I think she felt very apart from the rest of society. This may have contributed to the likelihood that she might act out violently.

I think later on, after the trial, you see signs of Lizzie opening up more. To me she does demonstrate a strong romantic interest in women. The Lady from Worcester, Nance etc. I see thus far no male counterpart to Nance. Lizzie expressed a romantic interest in Nance. I haven't seen that interest displayed toward a male.

[Kat]

Can I ask where the statistics for the 10% of the population being homosexually oriented came from?

I don't know- it's in *the air.*
Maybe Dr. Phil? Oprah? I've heard that percentage several times recently but not read about it. I have no source.

As sguthmann says, frustration in love is frustration in love, being any gender-attracted- also that everyone was supposed to be inhibited in the Victorian Days. So that's not enough to set Lizzie apart or provide a motive in and of itself, right? So I included in my question not only motive, but who, what, where and how.
I think the same answer has been offered- as to motive. There's more to this case than motive.
Anyone else have concrete examples (even if speculating?)

[DWilly]

Can I ask where the statistics for the 10% of the population being homosexually oriented came from?

As sguthmann says, frustration in love is frustration in love, being any gender-attracted- also that everyone was supposed to be inhibited in the Victorian Days. So that's not enough to set Lizzie apart or provide a motive in and of itself, right? So I included in my question not only motive, but who, what, where and how.
I think the same answer has been offered- as to motive. There's more to this case than motive.
Anyone else have concrete examples (even if speculating?)

True, everyone in the 1890s was supposed to be inhibited but homosexuals and lesbians were not on an equal plane as heterosexuals and you can't compare the two and act as if their problems were the same. They weren't. Heterosexuals could still have open relationships and were viewed positively by society. Not so with gays. They were viewed as mentally ill, vile, perverted and their acts were illegal. If Lizzie, for whatever reasons, found herself dreaming about another woman she would not know what to do. It may have caused her feelings of guilt or shame. If she wanted a boyfriend or there was some young man she dreamed about she could have talked with her friends. Not so if she had those feelings toward a woman. So, yes, she would have been more on the fringe of society if she were gay and there's no telling how it could have effected her mentally.

[Allen]

My feeling that Lizzie may have been gay stems from the fact the she never really reached out to any man for a relationship, that we know of. Do we have any letters that Lizzie wrote to a man, that showed any sort of romantic feelings? Were there any suitors at the Borden house? Did she ever entertain any men at Maplecroft? Because after Lizzie reached Maplecroft and began to be shunned by society, it's pretty clear she stopped giving a hang what the neighbors think. She openly entertained an actress, Nance, at her home which caused alot of gossip about Fall River. The tossed the W.C.T.U out on their ear after she felt they had snubbed her, and evicted them from her building. Who evicts a charitable Christian organization? Lizzie did it. She did what she wanted to the point that she may have driven her own sister away. It's pretty clear that Lizzie did as Lizzie pleased after that. So I'm thinking if there was any time that a man would've shown up in her life, whether Fall River was going to gossip or not, it would've been then. But nothing. Nobody. Except for a few who were connected by rumor and innuendo only.

It was stated quite often that Lizzie was a person who went after what she wanted. She was outspoken, and generally very straight forward. So...why no man in her life? Was she ever even interested? I'm not totally convinced she was. Because there is still a part of me that thinks maybe there was some hanky panky going on with Dr. Bowen. But again, there is no evidence of it other than rumor and innuendo. There is only one thing I can think of that may have kept Lizzie from EVER having a relationship with someone. That she was gay. That may have been a can of worms even Lizzie wouldn't want to publicly open. Maybe privately she did. Maybe this is why Emma went away.

[sguthmann]

So I included in my question not only motive, but who, what, where and how. I think the same answer has been offered- as to motive. There's more to this case than motive.

Agreed, but if motive could be nailed down, wouldn't that go a long way towards finding the killer, and vice verse? I just think it's an angle that shouldn't be ruled out. And I don't think you can realistically apply 21st Century stats to early 20th Century society and expect the results to be the same.

[john]

ur right, dwilly, now i have to "prove" that she is straight as opposed to conjecture that that she was gay. ok - do you have more than one instance of her gayatribe? then I've got ya because of her supposed boyfriend of which I think she had two. one after her acquital, and one when she was younger. please don't make me look 'em up - KAT!

[john]

With all due respect Squthmann and others, you're way off base with the homosexuality angle here. We're supposed to be trying to solve this crime and not confuse it. So if we're considering known facts at the time of the murders and filter in homosexuality as a factor, it comes up zero - would you agree with me, or is there something that you know that is unknown to everyone else? Maybe Lizzie was gay and maybe she wasn't - but she was not known at all as homosexuial at the time of the murders.
If that's a bad comment you let me know.
So lets proceed from there - and because of this gay junk you've lost about a week! But then again, what's a week?
I've told this room many many times that I felt very sorry for Lizzie, and contributed to the FRARL in her name, etc., but that doesn't make her innocent in my mind. It makes her a person that I could feel sorry for and try to help her soul. And so her soul is at rest as far as my contributions are concerned presently, but if i have extra money to tighe soon or later in my life, it will go to the frarl.
So that said I consider her a good person - do I think she killed her parents - I won't tell you - I'll give you another clue though - was the barn open or locked on the morning of the murders?

[john]

and secondly, squthmann and dwilly, you know you have to stay away from other posters including myself and allen, right?

[john]

and, squthmann and dwilly are baddin Lizzie?

[john]

oops sorry - bad post

[Kat]

So I included in my question not only motive, but who, what, where and how. I think the same answer has been offered- as to motive. There's more to this case than motive.

Agreed, but if motive could be nailed down, wouldn't that go a long way towards finding the killer, and vice verse? I just think it's an angle that shouldn't be ruled out. And I don't think you can realistically apply 21st Century stats to early 20th Century society and expect the results to be the same.

I agree- but I think those *stats* were standard- as an estimate, any modern century- industrialized age- otherwise, as you say, they'd be useless, and I wouldn't have brought it up at all.
Yes nailing motive would be key- but we probably have a complicated motive where sexual proclivity- if it influenced the crimes- played only a part.
If a lesbian leaning on Lizzie's part only played a slightly more melodramatic role in the killings than any love-lorn or loved-starved teenager in Victorian Times, then we can probably move forward and away from the subject.
No concrete influence has yet been shown to matter other than a hidden frustration. People don't often kill other people over that, do they? They might be more likely to kill themselves.

[john]

Gee thanks for gettin me off the hook Kat - da!
U guys are lucky I'm Mr. Soprano!

[john]

My son Eddy would have solved this big question quickly about lesbians and stuff. Ever had your balls slammed in a drawer? Then you're not queer.

[Harry]

... She tossed the W.C.T.U out on their ear after she felt they had snubbed her, and evicted them from her building. Who evicts a charitable Christian organization? Lizzie did it. She did what she wanted to the point that she may have driven her own sister away. ... .

I don't mean to take away from your post Allen but would just like to clarify one of your statements.

Lizzie never actually evicted the W.C.T.U. from the building. They had a 7 year lease (3 according to Cook) so she was stuck with them. What she did do was to cut off a source of funds to them. Previously they had been allowed to re-rent the rooms to other groups to help offset the rent. That practice was stopped. I guess you could say by cutting off these funds it was a form of eviction.

Rebello, page 294, has the following paragraph:

"... A member of the society made a social call on Miss Borden not long ago, and Miss Borden said that she did not want the society in her building, and while she should do nothing about the matter until the three years were up, she would be glad if they would move at once, and would make good whatever expense they had been to. The president wished it to be distinctly understood that they were not turned out and not invited out, but as it seemed evident that they were not wanted, they thought it would be best to vacate at once and have no more bad feeling or trouble; so of their own free will, without a direct word from the agent or Miss Borden, they left their quarters the last of May having occupied them only 17 months under the new administration. ..."

Ironically the 7 year lease (which somehow became 3) was signed at the time Lizzie and Emma inherited the building.

[Allen]

What she did do was to cut off a source of funds to them. Previously they had been allowed to re-rent the rooms to other groups to help offset the rent. That practice was stopped. I guess you could say by cutting off these funds it was a form of eviction.

Thanks, for providing the correct information Harry. You are ever the gentleman, and I don't think you took away from my post at all, simply corrected my error which I do appreciate.

I think it still took a lot of guts for her to do what she did do. I think she knew they wouldn't be able to make the rent without the extra income from renting out the rooms to other groups. Maybe she planned to 'starve' them out?

I have been trying to find some concrete information about what it was like to be homosexual in Victorian times. I have come into correspondance with a professor from another College on the subject, and I have ordered some books from Amazon that deal with this subject specifially. I just like to know all the angles when looking at a a subject, so I can take everything into account. I think it's the best way to approach any sort of research on any subject. Know all the angles, and all the in and out's if it's at all possible. It helps to see the whole picture if you can put as many of the pieces of the puzzle in as possible. I'm also studying the Victorian customs for courting of same sex couples. So it's not as if I'm totally stuck on the homosexual angle of it. I'd like to post some interesting information I found out about that later on as well.

"In the late nineteenth century, medical science added to the negative evaluation of homosexuality. The medical profession grew in influence, and almost without exception, American physicians diagnosed homosexuality as a form of illness. At first, opinion varied as to whether it was acquired or congenital; with the ascendance of Freudianism the acquired model became dominant.

A prolific medical literature, as well as records of treatment, suggest that many doctors viewed homosexuality with dread. Remedies included castration, hysterectomy, lobotomy, electroshock, and aversion therapy. Moralistic judgments permeated the "scientific" study of homosexuality. One physician described a case of homosexuality as "shocking to every sense of decency, disgusting and revolting," phrases that he surely would not have applied to a case of pneumonia or yellow fever."


http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... xualit.htm

[Allen]

Ok, this is the last link I have about this subject. I think it clearly shows what the views were. I think this could've caused a great deal of frustration, anxiety, and guilt in Lizzie if it were so. She may also have held the fear and anxiety that some of these therapies may be used on her? Could she have been threatened with it? It may not have been THE precipitating factor for the murders, or even THE motive, but if Lizzie were indeed a lesbian, it could go to show her state of mind. State of mind is something that is always considered for a murder case.

I would like to post some other interesting links about courting customs and rituals, and the womans place in nineteenth century society maybe later on tonight after I have researched through all the ones I have bookmarked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... psychology

[sguthmann]

a couple thoughts on recent posts:

- at the risk of becoming a broken record, i am not hung up on her being homosexual or otherwise, but simply trying to, as Allan said, consider all the facts, look at all the angles. liz left herself open to speculation on this topic, like it or not.
- in the interest of looking at all angles, it seems to me that Liz may have had some romantic relationships that are telling in light of the crime which she was accused. Is that all there is to the murders? Course not, but does love -or frustration -ever play a role in murder? Yes, i think so - ESPECIALLY "hidden frustration." Freud would have a field day with this. Subconscience desires and internal strife between the ego and id has been shown to play a major role in many murders. And perhaps it would surprise you to know that most often people in such situations don't do away with themselves to quiet the internal struggle, but instead get rid of others. The instinct for self-preservation runs deep. Last, but not least, keep in mind that the states of being suicidal and homicidal are very closely linked.

[DWilly]

a couple thoughts on recent posts:

- at the risk of becoming a broken record, i am not hung up on her being homosexual or otherwise, but simply trying to, as Allan said, consider all the facts, look at all the angles. liz left herself open to speculation on this topic, like it or not.
- in the interest of looking at all angles, it seems to me that Liz may have had some romantic relationships that are telling in light of the crime which she was accused. Is that all there is to the murders? Course not, but does love -or frustration -ever play a role in murder? Yes, i think so - ESPECIALLY "hidden frustration." Freud would have a field day with this. Subconscience desires and internal strife between the ego and id has been shown to play a major role in many murders. And perhaps it would surprise you to know that most often people in such situations don't do away with themselves to quiet the internal struggle, but instead get rid of others. The instinct for self-preservation runs deep. Last, but not least, keep in mind that the states of being suicidal and homicidal are very closely linked.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at the possibility she was a lesbian and it may have effected her emotionally. Is it any wilder to say her lesbianism may have contributed to her mind set than it is to postulate that Andrew wouldn't let Lizzie marry David because he liked to ride a bike and so David slaughtered Andrew and Abby over it?

[Kat]

And perhaps it would surprise you to know that most often people in such situations don't do away with themselves to quiet the internal struggle, but instead get rid of others. The instinct for self-preservation runs deep. Last, but not least, keep in mind that the states of being suicidal and homicidal are very closely linked.

--sguthmann

I'm speaking of a homosexual person committing murder.
My understanding is that the individual would probably be more likely to commit suicide than murder if the hidden frustration was in part due to their gender orientation.
I really think it's possible that a heterosexual would lash out and kill another under these stressors, but the homosexual would more likely kill themselves. It's just a theory.
What do I know?
I do have friends who are gay who all know someone who has committed suicide- but not one who ever murdered. That is 20th century and 21st century tho.

[john]

Squthmann - call her Lizzie - No one ever called her Liz - except perhaps for you - and we don't call you Squath

[john]

Wrong Kat - read "Goal Blockage Study."
Paper from Harvard, I think, only study on violence except for a couple on prisioner id and a few on the effects of isolation.