I now pronounce you Dwarf & Hobbit...oops!

[davem]

I'm arguing that the humans in Tolkien's world are humans as he conceived them to be – not humans as they are in the primary world. In other words, they are just as much a 'fantasy' race as Elves, Dwarves or Ents. The point of the link was simply to show that Tolkien had thought about Elven sexuality & hence that sexuality per se was not something he didn't think about. He also states elsewhere that Elves are aspects of the human.

My position is that Tolkien's humans are like Tolkien's Elves – an invention. They are not primary world humans transported to M-e. They are inhabitants of that world – the world he conceived & brought into being. Sexual orientation is not equivalent to going to the lavatory. One assumes the latter exists because it is a biological function. We know the characters ate, therefore we assume they excreted waste. Sexual orientation is psychological/genetic.

The question then is, did Tolkien conceive of his humans having that potential - & did that potential ever manifest. I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.

Tolkien creates hundreds of characters, scores of them in depth, & yet we never see a single example of homosexual behaviour – or desire. We only see examples of heterosexual behaviour & desire. Its not true that sex is not mentioned in Tolkien's work. Sex plays a part. Celegorm & Curufin attempt to abduct Luthien out of desire. Morgoth lusts for Luthien as well. Beren clearly desires her too. In CoH we have Turin preventing his fellow outlaws committing rape. Sexual desire plays its part in the mythology – but its all heterosexual desire. So, either Tolkien covered up homosexuality, & like some Edwardian prude pretended it did not exist – or, which seems more likely, he invented a world in which it did not exist – whether for moral, ethical or aesthetic reasons is the question. Or maybe it just never occurred to him to include it, to carry it over from the primary world. Whatever the reason, it simply does not exist in M-e as we have it from Tolkien.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm arguing that the humans in Tolkien's world are humans as he conceived them to be – not humans as they are in the primary world. In other words, they are just as much a 'fantasy' race as Elves, Dwarves or Ents. . . .I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.

It's fantasy sex then. Functions only for reproduction or ill-gotten gains of power. No pleasure or desire (as opposed to lust), no emotional or psychological bonds. Partnering for prosperity and much of the messy bits left out.

And the next question must be, of Tolkien's heroines, does she or doesn't she?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

To argue that 'homosexuality occurs within the human race in the primary world, therefore it must occur among humans in the secondary world' is equivalent to arguing that because Ents exist in the secondary world they must also exist in the primary world'.

Faulty logic, as Rikae has pointed out. This is akin to saying that because there are taxis in both London and New York, the Statue of Liberty must exist in London.

Originally Posted by davem

Again, where in any of Tolkiens' M-e writings is there a relationship that could be interpreted as having a homosexual/lesbian aspect?

I would ask you, in turn, where in any of Tolkien's writings there is anything which would definitively rule out the existence of homosexuality in M-e (or even make it improbable).

Originally Posted by davem

This is absolutely not (as far as I'm concerned) a 'moral' question.Its simply a question of whether 'X' existed in M-e. And the conclusion I come to is that there is no evidence that Tolkien 'imported' that aspect of the human into his world.

The question is the same for me. And I come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that he excluded it.

Originally Posted by davem

I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.

Yet the other examples of the occurence of sexuality in Tolkien's works that you give make it clear that, for humans, sexuality was not simply about procreation. Clearly, therefore, human sexuality may not be equated with Elvish sexuality.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Davem

Sexual orientation is not equivalent to going to the lavatory. One assumes the latter exists because it is a biological function. We know the characters ate, therefore we assume they excreted waste. Sexual orientation is psychological/genetic.

Genetics are part of biology, and so (arguably) is psychology.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Faulty logic, as Rikae has pointed out. This is akin to saying that because there are taxis in both London and New York, the Statue of Liberty must exist in London.

No - the only fault in logic is the assumption that humans in Tolkien's world are no different to humans in the primary world. This is assuming that which is to be proved. My point is that we can assume no such thing. In Tolkien's world some humans live for over 200 years, & have enhanced physical powers (Aragorn), or heightened instincts/insight (Faramir). There are differences between Men in M-e & Men in our world.

I would ask you, in turn, where in any of Tolkien's writings there is anything which would definitively rule out the existence of homosexuality in M-e (or even make it improbable).

This question cannot be reduced to 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' arguments. As I stated, Tolkien has created hundreds of characters, & not one can be interpreted as homosexual. In fact, all can either be interpreted as either asexual or heterosexual. Simply, I would ask - why not? As I stated, the argument that Homosexuality existed in Tolkien's world but he chose not to refer to it is far less logical than the argument that he did not mention it because, in his world, it did not exist. I suppose one could argue that there were homosexual characters in Tolkien's world, but they were so insignificant that they did not merit any mention - but I think that's actually more insulting...

The question is the same for me. And I come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that he excluded it.

Well, the 'evidence' is that he did not ever, even in the vaguest way, ever mention it.

Yet the other examples of the occurence of sexuality in Tolkien's works that you give make it clear that, for humans, sexuality was not simply about procreation. Clearly, therefore, human sexuality may not be equated with Elvish sexuality.

Which is not evidence for the existence of homosexuality in M-e.

Rikae

Genetics are part of biology, and so (arguably) is psychology.

Ok, I should have stated that excretion is a

necessary

biological function, whereas, in Tolkien's world, homosexuality is not - clearly, as it doesn't exist there.

[Nogrod]

I don't think we will solve this with logic even if it clearly holds that if we don't perceive / find something, that doesn't mean we have proven that something not to exist. I bet no one of you has seen ZSDFjxcklöbnx (or a god of your liking). Neither have I but we can't rule out the possibility that ZSDFjxcklöbnx (or a god of your liking) exists.

Or, can someone of you prove you didn't cast that funny voting ticket with Donald Duck drawn to it during the last elections? If there is no evidence to share - even how deep your own conviction about the thing might be - it's either way and we can't prove it.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything (in courts it decides with the in dubio pro reo though, but happily we can't draw the prof into the court with this question... ).

But I think Davem is right in insisting that Tolkien seems quite intent in excluding homosexuality from his world. So I can see an authorial intention not to mention openly such a possibility in his M-E, whatever his reasons to that were.

How much power the author has over his creation after it has left his hands and spread to the world is then another question I think?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How much power the author has over his creation after it has left his hands and spread to the world is then another question I think?

I suppose its a question of whether you're motivated by a desire to understand & explore the author's creation, or whether you're motivated by a desire to remake the author's creation 'in your own image'....

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose its a question of whether you're motivated by a desire to understand & explore the author's creation, or whether you're motivated by a desire to remake the author's creation 'in your own image'....

Hmm...
my image? Certainly not mine, I'm quite heterosexual.
Perhaps trying to understand art through the prism of reality, and vice versa...
after all, if there were no reality, there would be no fiction either.