Could C T Russell been gay and hid behind a sexless mariage?

by frankiespeakin 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  Frankie:The reason that I say it's a slight on gays is that it's a leading statement with no foundation in sexuality - he didn't have sex with his wife... oh, he must be gay then...
  How on earth is that a reasonable assumption, in light of the fact that this is the sum of your evidence? There could have been any number of other reasons, so why jump on that one?
  RR brings up one, another could have been impotence.
  I think REM (where is the b*gger??) would call it an unfalsifiable theory.

  RR:It sounds kinda crackpot, but he wouldn't have been the first to remain celebate for "the cause". We hear so little about it these days (beyond the latest craze in the USA amongst young ones to declare their virginity before marriage), but at least in the Victorian era they had a term for it.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  LT,

  How on earth is that a reasonable assumption, in light of the fact that this is the sum of your evidence? There could have been any number of other reasons, so why jump on that one?

  It is one very reasonable assumption that he was gay and had a secret boy friend at least I think so and one that can never be stated dogmatically. I'm just surprised that so many feel it a subject that should be clasified as "taboo" when it is after all quite reasonable to inquire since Russell's behaviour towards his wife is shall we say very very strange for heterosexaul,, but not so strange if he were a closet homosexual.

  I think anybody who makes himself a public figure and effected the lives of many,, can rightly be scrutinize,, because of their historical importance,, just like we can scrutinize Thomas Jefferson and his sex affairs,,this is not wrong in any way,, except maybe in the eyes of some of his decendants.
• 

  hillbilly

  If one does a little reasearch of his time period Celabacy (sp) was a little bit in vouge...especially with the other Miller-adventist type folks.

  Release of semen was thought to be bad for the body, mind and spirit of a man.... an evil thing only for procreation...

  Russell was just a product of his times (na- he was a fruitcake!)

  ----------Hill
• 

  RunningMan

  Today there are sexless marriages, some by choice, others by fate.

  I have to admit, I don't know of any sexless marriages. In fact, I'm not sure that I know any sexless single persons.
• 

  fleaman uk

  Gay? Not gay....so what?I personally veer to the "sexless marriage "thing,cant help thinking its not important...just my opinion tho
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I think it is important to at least consider the very real possiblity, after all he was a master at manipulation and deceit,, his should be opened up for further investigation being that his teaching form the foundation of the WT teachings and any clouds that overshadow this man deserve out attention if we have been invoolved with this cult. Fair game if you ask me,, after all did he not severly critizsize the religions of his time and promote himself at their expense,, to me that makes him all the more open for our inspection.

  So I don't think those that say we shouldn't speculate about his sexuality are on some higher moral ground than those that speculate on his very wierd sexless marriage to Maria.
• 

  LittleToe

  Frankie:

  ...it is after all quite reasonable to inquire...

  I don't believe it's reasonable at all. He's not around to enquire of, nor are any of his contemporaries. All you are doing is throwing up foundless allegations and potentially making the "Apostate" world look silly...

  (All IMHO, of course)
• 

  frankiespeakin

  LT,

  I don't believe it's reasonable at all. He's not around to enquire of, nor are any of his contemporaries. All you are doing is throwing up foundless allegations and potentially making the "Apostate" world look silly

  Do you feel it unreasonable to speculate on Thomas Jefferson and his affairs and that he had slaves who were his own children?
• 

  Leolaia

  I concur that this discussion is a bit pointless. In any event, Foucault has written quite a bit dispelling the myth of Victorian repression which is quite interesting to read. There was indeed a lot of "celebacy" and all the things we associate with Victorian culture (e.g. those anti-masturbation machines), yet there was a hell of a lot of interest in sex -- this was the golden age of sexology, and sex was the talk of the drawing rooms and halls. The thing is, sexology was permissible because it stylized itself as a "science" and thus incorporated the ideology of Progress that formed an indispensible part of polite 19th-century discussion. It also furnished a whole new language for talking about sex. The category of "homosexual" was created by these sexologists and in these early days, it was thought to be a thoroughly RATIONAL endeavor to explicate the species of sexual behavior, categorizing them like flora and fauna of nature, and discovering some system of understanding how such "abberrant" behavior arises. Anyway, considering the appeal of rationalism and science to Russell, his celebacy, and commitment to his religious cause, if we want to talk about repression of desires, it would make sense to ask what he wrote (if anything) on the science of sexology. Also, was condemnation of homosexuality something that ever arose as a theme (i.e., a repeated theme or mentioned with unusual stress) in his writings? It would not prove things either way, as he could've talked about sexology in person but not in print, and the presence of strong condemnations of homosexuality would not at all prove that he had same-sex desires. Looking for such statements in his writings would only carry the pointless and unfalsifiable discussion one step further.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Leo,

  I agree that at this late date no conclusive evidence exists and the discussion would be pointless if the aim was to find concrete evidence to prove either way.

  That being said,,It is still an interesting subject to consider both pro and con,, either way the discussion goes for or against, the good part IMO is that we are focusing on the leader of a mind control cult and his unusual behavior which very few JWs even know about. So while the question can't be settled at least all who read this subject (rather eagerly because it contains juicy parts) will alway remember Russell was a wierdo and in no way used by God as a spokesman.