Hello, historians. I know my question must sound rather strange. I stumbled across a non-scholarly "listicle" that implied the existence of gay and bisexual pirates. Being bisexual myself, any idea of more historical record of people with same sex desires existing is tantalizing, but it's important to be skeptical. So I did some digging.

The first source cited by the totally unscholarly website appears to be a book, but it has bad reviews and was discounted in a PhD dissertation I found. (More on that below).

The second source cited in the "listicle" is a queer and gender studies book, which makes me dubious because those tend to overstate the prevalence and importance of LGBT people in history and literature. That source cites a book called Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition, saying:

Among pirates or buccaneers in the seventeenth century (and perhaps earlier), matelotage was an institution “linking … a buccaneer and another male—most often a youth—a relationship with clearly homosexual characteristics” (128). While the bond of* matelotage* among pirates, as opposed to sailors, was sometimes tainted with abuse—violence was a way of life for many pirates—“the generally recognized bond it created between men and the understanding that an inviolable attachment existed between the two as long as the master wanted it to remain so gave matelotage, a sacrosanct aura among buccaneers” (Burg 1984:128). In some cases, even among pirates, the relationship of matelotage appears to have taken a marriage-like form, with the two matelots sharing all property in common and with the one inheriting all property on the death of the other (Burg 1984:128). It is conceivable that the term bardache, often used, as mentioned earlier, to refer to a male who takes the receptive role in male-male erotic relations, may have been applied to one of the partners in the relationship of matelotage….

But even a source from a GLBTQ encyclopedia says that it's highly doubtful that pirates were at all accepting of homosexuality or homosexual behaviors and that we can never know anyway because of how historical sources and evidence get lost to time.

The third source that the listicle cited doesn't have any readable text, but they only cite it for a definition of matelotage. The fourth source from the listicle is a PhD dissertation, but it's a dissertation regarding portrayals in fiction, rather than something by a historian. I also want to note that a footnote in this dissertation questioned the credibility of two of the above sources:

B.R. Burg’s two general histories of homosexuality in seafaring, Sodomy and the Perception of Evil and Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition are at times forced and unsubstantiated. His biography of Philip C. Van Buskirk’s erotic encounters on the high seas, An American Seafarer in the Age of Sail, is much more convincing however. Turley’s Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, on the other hand, is more sensationalistic than historically accurate.

To save having to dig through a dissertation, I'm going to give the relevant pages (as you would type them into the page number box of the pdf, not the ones actually on the bottom of the page):

• 24-26 talks about matelotage, but notes that it could've been practiced by unmarried men who needed to sort out property inheritance or to help with business ventures
• A section called "Queering Kinship" starts on page 226. Note: "homosocial" is a term that refers to same-sex friendships and their associated behaviors. A football team goofing off, or a guys' night out can be homosocial. The book that the dissertation author is comparing to historical analogues is called "They're cows, We're pigs" (in its English translation) and is a 2001 fiction novel. The only part of the section that seems to have any historical grounding is on 227-228, but it cites a source that even the author herself claimed was dubious :/

The original listicle makes the outrageous claim that:

The French sent hundreds of prostitutes into Tortuga in the mid-1600s, they were trying to counter matelotage. The result was not what they expected. The fluid sexuality of the pirate community welcomed the prostitutes and many engaged in threesomes with the women.

And it links the above PhD dissertation as a source, but I couldn't find it in there. Granted, I didn't read it cover to cover, but I dug around for a little while and didn't see anything. Did that ever actually happen? Or did some internet author hoping to get more site hits make something up and falsely link a source? (Edit: According to these 1 2 3 it was the French governor le Vasseur in 1650. One is uncited, one cites a book that has been called dubious but the third cites Alexandre Exquemelin's History of the Bouccaneers of America... so does that mean that it's possible that it really did happen?)

I've heard that the punishment for gay and bisexual men, or anybody who committed "sexual crimes against nature" in Elizabethan England would be burned at the stake. (The only source I have for that is admittedly wikipedia.) I've also heard that the burning at the stake punishment led to the term "flaming (insert derogatory term for gay/bi men here)". Being burned at the stake sounds horrendous- so would piracy be a way for some of those men to escape potential death for "crimes against nature"?

One last complicating factor: different types/definitions of bisexuality (source here: page 30 of Marjorie Garber's treatise on bisexuality, but they were first outlined by a psychologist, Fritz Klein, in 1978)

• "Defense Bisexuality" (men who are really gay, but fake being straight, even having relationships with women because they live in a society that doesn't accept homosexuality)
• "Latin Bisexuality" (apparently the insertive role in certain Mediterranean cultures (edit: would 16th-18th century Spain have been included?) is not regarded as homosexual, so that men who participate in same-sex encounters may consider themselves nonetheless heterosexual)
• "Situational Bisexuality" (sex with same-sex partners in prisons or other single-sex institutions... like pirate ships at sea?)
• "True" bisexuality (being attracted to more than one gender, either sexually and/or romantically)
• "Experimental bisexuality" (exactly what it sounds like)

Any history of someone falling into any of those categories would be interesting.

So, I've laid out the ghost that I chased. Are there any actually trustworthy sources that would indicate such practices? (Google scholar gave me zero luck.) Is this just something that is wishful thinking on the part of some authors? Will we never know because sources and evidence were lost to history? Even if some pirates engaged in such practices was it incredibly rare? I'm trying to approach this with as much skepticism as would be had by a straight person being told "did you know a bunch of pirates were bisexual?". I'm just an engineer and figured that this is something to ask actual historians for help on.

Today's Discussion is dealing with answers which are links or quotes, with a special nod to the use of Wikipedia. To start out, the rule states:

Do not just post links to other sites as an answer. This is not helpful. Please take some time to put the links in context for the person asking the question. Avoid only recommending a source – whether that's another site, a book, or large slabs of copy-pasted text. If you want to recommend a source, please provide at least a small summary of what the source says. (This does not apply to questions that are only created to request sources.) Linking to past /r/AskHistorians questions is allowable.

Regardless of the quality of the source you are citing, an answer should not consist only (or primarily) of copy-pasted sections of text from that source. The intention in providing an answer in r/AskHistorians is to answer as a historian: making a statement of your own, while using sources to support that statement.

A good answer will be a balanced mix of context and explanation and sources and quotations. Only links or only quotations is not a good answer.

We understand that in most cases, when someone posts an answer which violates this rule, they aren't setting out to be a rulesbreaker, and really are just trying to be helpful to the OP, but that doesn't give them a pass of course. The basic assumption that we operate under is that when someone comes to /r/AskHistorians and posts a question, they are doing so because they want an answer that complies with the rules we have in place here. In fact, the results of our last census indicate that most posters have already done some basic research either with an internet search or reading Wikipedia. There is an expectation that the result will be an informed response from someone capable of engaging with the sources, and providing follow up information. Now, let's break this down!

But the link/quoted text I posted answers the question!

There are tons of great web-resources out there, and the link you are providing may very well be one of them. But it may also be the top hit from Google when you punched in "OP's Topic". The distinction isn't all that important though when it comes to how we moderate. Links to online resources of course can make up an important part of a well-rounded answer, but do not equal an answer on their own, at least by the standards we maintain here. As noted before, we operate on the assumption that the OP is looking for the answer here. This means that while the provided link might lead to more in-depth further reading for anyone interested in doing so, any post that includes a link must also be properly contextualizing it.

This also applies when the answer is made up entirely or mostly of a block quote of text from another source, and doubly so in the case of text quoted from a book rather than an online resource since OP might not even be able to access it! If you cannot properly contextualize the quotation in question, it is of little utility in answering the question satisfactorily. All users who choose to answer are expected to, as your middle school teacher perhaps put it, be able to "put it in their own words". That is to say, be able to draw on a variety sources and meld them together into an answer, and additionally be able to provide follow up information if asked.

Simply put, when an answer is just a link, or just a quote, it in no way demonstrates any of that. Perhaps you do know plenty more, but we simply can't know that. If you are not prepared to provide a proper answer off the bat, no one is forcing you to answer a question, so it is simply best that you pass on it for now, and try later when you have more time to devote to it.

But Wikipedia has an article exactly about this!

Probably no single site ends up linked more than Wikipedia, and it deserves special mention as such. It is quite likely the most well known resource for information on the web, and as such, it can be safely assumed that the poster is aware they could search Wikipedia for the answer to their question! With this in mind, we operate on the presumption that they either don't want to get the answer that way, or have already done so and found it lacking, and as noted, our census numbers support this approach.

For the aforementioned reasons, simply linking to a Wikipedia page is against the rules here, but even when not just link dropping, and instead using Wikipedia as a cited source, however, we run into serious issues. To be fair, Wikipedia has its uses! Dates, basics facts and figures, images... there are tons of information that citing Wikipedia for is generally acceptable for, but it is a Tertiary Source, same as any other encyclopedia. To quote /u/Tenminutehistory in his recent piece on Sources:

Tertiary sources summarize mainly secondary sources and sometimes primary sources. They often simplify things considerably to act as a quick guide or reference. Encyclopedias are the most common example. They might also be textbooks, almanacs, etc. Tertiary sources stand out because they are often not acceptable for use as sources in scholarly works – they are too far removed from the original evidence and almost never contain the kind of contextualization within the larger literature that secondary sources have.

Now, I know that studies have been done which indicate Wikipedia is no less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica, but while inaccuracies can be an issue when relying on it, that is frankly of secondary concern, and the prime reason we frown on use of Wikipedia as a source is the Tertiary nature. They can be useful for basic information, but are not the best place to look for context and deeper coverage. Our rules are quite explicit that primary and secondary sources are acceptable, and while Wikipedia gets a special mention due to the ubiquity of references to it, it is included as only an example of Tertiary sources:

A good answer will be supported by relevant and reliable sources. Primary sources are good. Secondary sources are also acceptable. However, tertiary sources such as Wikipedia are not as good. [...] Wikipedia, or any other single tertiary resource, used by itself not a suitable basis for a comment in this subreddit.

What about recommending a well reviewed piece of academic literature?

As with link dropping, we don't allow name dropping of books or articles, even if they are academic publications. But, we do make exceptions if the poster is making a proper explanation of the merits of the book and why it might be useful to the OP! To be sure, we aren't expecting you to write a 1000 word review of the book, but you should be able to demonstrate a) That you have read it or are at least quite familiar with the content, b) That the book is well reviewed and generally considered to be good, and c) That the book would make for useful further reading for the OP in regards to their question. A post which meets those qualifications, even if not providing a proper answer, will almost certainly not be removed, barring some other glaring problem.

What about linking to previous answers on /r/AskHistorians?

As you have no doubt seen, we do allow the linking of old /r/AskHistorians answers. We maintain a large FAQ which catalogs many previous threads, and many users are quite adept at searching through the archives here. Ideally, every post would recieve a fantastic response, but the simple fact is that many posts will remain unnoticed and unanswered. There is always more than can be said on a topic, so linking past answers isn't intended to discourage new responses, but simply to provide the OP with some information that might be useful while they wait.

There are a few caveats worth mentioning, however.

• Most obviously, always be polite! Especially for mobile users, they might not even realize the FAQ exists!
• It is highly suggested that you include a username ping for the person who answered it previously! It lets them know about the new thread, so they may be able to come and provide further information.
• Linking is fine. Providing a quick excerpt is also fine. Please don't quote the entire answer verbatim though. We want to encourage people to go to the original post! Yes, it is silly internet points, but don't be a karma-jacker! However, if the post is archived and more than 6 months old, we are generally less concerned about this, but at least please make sure to include the aforementioned username ping. And even then, we prefer that you don't and it might end up removed anyways.

But what if I'm the OP and I wanted those links or quotes?

Unfortunately, with the exception of threads which are explicitly titled as seeking source recommendations, we can't personalize the moderation of every thread. We usually have at least 120 questions per day, and average just under 50,000 unique visitors as well.. If every OP was allowed to set the parameters for their thread, with different rules applying everywhere, it would be something of a nightmare to manage, confusing not just for the modteam, but also the userbase trying to navigate it. As was stated earlier, our assumption in moderating a thread is that the OP is looking for an answer that conforms to the rules, and if this isn't the case, we are sorry, but we simply can't accommodate those requests. You certainly are welcome to try other subreddits such as /r/askhistory, /r/history, /r/askreddit, /r/answers, /r/explainlikeimfive, and so on, where standards are different, and you may be able to find the sort of answer you are looking for.

Can you give me the TL;DR please?

In /r/AskHistorians, we moderate with the assumption question-askers are seeking an "AskHistorians Answer™". They want to engage with someone who knows about the topic, and can discuss it with some level of expertise. Simply posting a link or a quote does not satisfy this, so unless you are prepared to provide further information that can properly contextualize them, please don't post it!