I totally agree Jeff. This to me ties in with what Terry writes about race from Nanny and Rincewind's point of view. Don't care what colour a person is, if they're holding a sword, run! Nanny's views on the voodoo witch in WA. Also this is a world where the real dilemma is ' what will people think of me if I marry this nice werewolf?' It would be nice if it was one of those those things that was just a given, like how most people of any sexuality would like to be accepted rather than stand out.raisindot wrote:BaldFriede wrote:I think the point about Tonkers and Lofty is that they are lovers but they are not really lesbians. They are not interested in the same sex per se, they are interested in each other and just happen to be of the same sex. So they are technically lesbians but not really.
Gotta ask: Isn't "lesbian" or "homosexual" just a label that straight people applied to those who weren't heterosexual and that, thought most of modern history, has been pejorative until these labels were turned into labels of pride in the last 30 years of so?
I say that because in ancient times there were plenty of Greeks and Romans who had same-sex relationships and no one thought anything of it. They didn't use labels because a person's sexual practices didn't matter--it was considered to be completely 'normal.' It was only until the Judeo-Christian tradition came in an demonized these practices that these terms were invented to identify those are practitioners of acts that were considered "sinful.'
On the DW, presumably such distinctions have never been established either.
Tonker and Lofty don't classify themselves as "lesbians," because they're not even aware that what they're doing could possibly be considered sinful. In their country, two women having a sexual or loving relationship isn't necessarily sinful (we really don't know). It's far more of a sin for a woman to be a soldier.