Linked by David Adams on Mon 25th Jun 2012 19:32 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Permalink for comment 523784
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-10-23
I agree entirely with your take on it. Given that we can't know for sure one way or the other, would personally prefer to suppose he took his lot with fortitude and good humour, as witness accounts from the time seem to suggest, rather than despair.
A small note of correction though:
"... the government was empowered to force chemical castration on any human being because of their sexual orientation."
As I understand it he actually opted to take the oestrogen treatment rather than the conventional punishment. Still scandalous, of course.
What is particularly unpleasant is that these laws had been largely unused for hundreds of years, with society and the law turning a blind eye to homosexuality as long as you weren't shouting about it from atop a pillar in Trafalgar Square. It wasn't until the late nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries that they started to actually enforce it. Hardly progress.