So asexual people are a figment of the imagination?
From the OP title I would say the “does it matter” angle.
From today’s perspective I doubt if anyone cares who J. Edgar Hoover slept with. If he wanted to dress in drag…fine.
But…
Uniquely Nasty: J. Edgar Hoover’s war on gays
The directive was stern and uncompromising. In the depths of the Cold War, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover ordered his agents to undertake a new mission: Identify every gay and suspected gay working for the federal government.
Only Hoover didn’t describe his targets as gays. He called them “sex deviates.”
I’d say it’s more like “… I doubt if anyone on the Left cares …”
There are plenty of frothing haters out there today who’d care a lot. And whose image of Hoover as an incorruptible stalwart crimefighting superhero above (beyond?) all political control would be utterly punctured if it became indisputable that Hoover was gay.
It’s pretty evident that Hoover’s operational guidance to the FBI was long on chasing gays and short on chasing mobsters. Over multiple decades. If one actually cared then or cares now about the quality of Federal law enforcement, this represented a colossal misappropriation / misapplication of resources. The “mystery” is why that occurred and why no other force in Washington was ever able to alter the FBI’s course. Not Congress, not President, not Supreme Court. Not for nearly 50 years. Until the day Hoover died.
Which “mystery” will of course remain mysterious if one screws their eyes tightly shut to the most obvious probability while loudly shouting “La la la. I can’t hear you” with fingers in ears.
The humorous thing is how many folks and how strongly can pull this stunt with a straight face claiming no such thing is going on.
We have exactly zero evidence he was gay.
We do have evidence he was in a relationship with Tolson. That does not mean it was a sexual relationship. There is nary a hint anywhere that the relationship, close as it was- was gay. The assumption that a close relationship must be sexual is false.
You need to stop saying this, because it’s manifestly untrue.
So it the assumption that a homosexual relationship must be physical. Being gay is about who you love, not just who you fuck.
One can be both gay and asexual at the same time.
No thank you. Unless this is a Mod Instruction?
True, you can have a platonic gay as well as hetero relationship. But other than the fact that Hoover had a deep friendship with another man, there is no evidence he was gay. No secret letters, nothing ever seen by a third party, etc. Nothing other than a close friendship with Tolson. Which makes sense- Hoover was a very private man, and with good reason.
Are you saying a gay man can’t have a close long term relationship with a woman?
Uh huh. And when you see a couple of opposite sex doing all the things together that Hoover and Tolson did together, do you reject any assertion that there is evidence that this couple is straight?
No, I’m posting that as a queer person who’s tired of clueless straight people trying to lecture people about queer identities.
If you think the public record on Hoover and Tolson describes a “close friendship” and not a romantic relationship, I can only assume that you have little experience with either.
I can guarantee you that DrDeth takes the existence of many, many heterosexual relationships at face value with far less evidence than he expects for Hoover and Tolson.
A man and his best friend were discussing their married lives. The conversation soon stirred towards their wives’ faithfulness. The man said: “You know, I really trust my wife. And I think she has always been faithful to me. But there is always that doubt.”
The friend agreed with him, saying: “Yeah. I know what you mean.” Several weeks later, the man went out of town on a business trip. Before his departure, he entrusted his best friend with the task of spying on his wife to ensure she remained faithful. He voiced: “While I’m away, could you do me a favor? Could you watch my house and see if there is anything fishy going on? I mean, I trust my wife, but there is always that doubt.”
The friend agreed to help out, and the man embarked on his two-week trip. Upon his return, he hooked up with his friend and asked for an update. The friend began with a somber face: “I have some bad news for you.” He continued: "The day after you left, I saw a strange car pull up in front of your house. Your wife ran out and the duo entered the house and turned on the light. Peeping through the window, the friend saw the man’s wife making out with the strange man. He recalled: “Your wife was kissing the man. Then he took off his shirt. Then she took off her blouse. Then they turned off the light.”
On that note, he ended his story. Unsatisfied, the man probed his best friend for further explanation, demanding: “And then what happened?” The friend shrugged and said: “I don’t know. It was too dark to see.” The man exclaimed:
"Damn! You see what I mean? There’s always that doubt.
My last post went too far in attacking the poster instead of the post. I apologize for my lapse in judgement, and will step back from posting further in this thread.
Miller has it right.
Not only did Hoover seem to have a preoccupation with identifying gay people, but (per this source), he took personal affront to any rumor that he, himself, was homosexual.
This appears to be substantiated by actual documents.
Of course, it means nothing definitive. But it is in an interesting glimpse into Hoover’s concerns.
In looking around for information, I also found another interesting tidbit: Clyde Tolson retired from the FBI two days after Hoover’s death. Makes you wonder what his routine was like in those later years of Hoover’s life.
I find Tolson’s obituary, from 1975, gives another intriguing account of their relationship.
I also note that, officially, Hoover and Tolson lived apart. Yet Tolson’s apartment was within a short walking distance from Hoover’s house.
Thank you and you know? I have gotten too involved here also, and I apologize if I offended anyone. I will also bow out.
Leaving the truth of the matter aside, the trope has been around a while.
I was watching a Law and Order rerun from 1992 this afternoon. The episode was White Rabbit, in this episode detectives Logan and Briscoe have clues that have lead them to the perp of a 20 year old murder committed by an anti-Vietnam activist.
In one scene, after they e been stonewalled by the FBI, they have this exchange (lightly paraphrased).
Briscoe: What do you think the FBI was up to back in 1972?
Logan: Buying feather boas for J Edgar Hoover, I imagine.
Just FWIW
Is it because Hoover knew all the skeletons in everyone’s closet? Take Hoover down and he takes loads of powerful people down with him. So, leave him be. Even protect and shield him.
Well yes, of course. Or at least that is very probably the case. Hence my scare-quotes around “mystery”. IOW everybody knew or thought they knew; nobody could or would prove it.
IMO Hoover & the Establishment had a mutual suicide pact. Or you could call it a variant of Mutual Assured Destruction. Any attack by one side would result in massive unacceptable retaliation by the other. There could be no attack so instantly devastating as to preclude the other side from retaliating to also devastating effect.