Was anyone else mystified by this Guardian article about the clothes worn by the Bloomsbury group?

[MaybeDoctor]

I was recently rather puzzled by a Guardian article which focuses on the clothing worn by the Bloomsbury group when staying at Charleston. Everyone who has come across Virgina Woolf and friends knows that members of the Bloomsbury group had heterosexual, gay and lesbian relationships, but there seems to be a huge emphasis on re-examining this in the lens of queer theory.

The bit that jumped out at me was the analysis of a very mundane photograph, of JM Keynes and Duncan Grant standing opposite each other. It is literally a photograph of two men standing a couple of feet apart, chatting, wearing three-piece-suits - utterly innocuous - but it is re-interpreted as one man 'thrusting his crotch' at the other and the other man 'shielding' himself with his hands. The description came before the photograph and I was expecting something completely different from the bland picture that followed! The article seems bizarrely determined to sexualise things that are not sexual at all...

To the authors of the article and the book:

The Bloomsbury group had sex, as well as being mothers, fathers, artists and well-educated individuals.
They had same-sex relationships, as many people do over the course of a long life. This is not intrinsically extraordinary, although same sex-relationships either broke social norms or were illegal at the time.
This was known long before you came into being and does not need to be 'queered'!

‘You’re not getting any’ – the secret sexual signals in the Bloomsbury Group’s clothes | Culture | The Guardian

The Guardian does publish shit like this from time to time, as clickbait. There is another one today about the evolutionary reasons to favour co-sleeping - which concluded abruptly that it can be hard to sleep with a toddler kicking you in the back. No shit Sherlock. Literal page-filler.

Yes I saw it too. But so much rubbish gets put out these days that I just ignored it.

Meh - who reads the Guardian for serious comment these days?

What a load of bollocks, but I'm not surprised, and Charleston is VERY captured by the whole LGBTQ+ thing -
I guess it's just up the road from Brighton, so I shouldn't be surprised.
AWFUL gender-neutral toilets too with urinals you have to walk past to get to the loos, and lots of confused older women hovering outside all watching the door for one another.

My reading group stopped going to the book festival a few years ago as we no longer felt represented or welcome!
I did a house tour and enjoyed finding out about the Bloomsbury Set. As you say OP, everyone knows they enjoyed a mix of heterosexual, gay and lesbian relationships, but I'm not sure why this has to be so over-analysed?

I used to be an avid reader of the Guardian. Completely missed this. I've noticed a lot of head lines recently for articles about or by people with odd sexual kinks. I think the Guardian is trying to be more 'queer' (ghastly word).

TripAdvisor reviews are mainly about the garden, cafe, room volunteers and seem very under-whelmed by the gallery exhibitions!

I want to know what extravagant jodhpurs look like.

There is a strong whiff of 'We invented sex, don't you know!' in the current movement.

I did think that part of the article was odd.

But even though I am a Keynes fan, he was certainly an oddity. I think he would have found the article hilarious tbh. He used to pay the rent on Charleston, after all, as his friends could rarely afford to.

I had exactly the same thought RE the picture - as though they’d put the wrong one with the article

Originally being a lefty - before all this started - I am rather fond of the old Keynesian macroeconomics...🙂

Oh my lord, the writer thinks he's the first person to ever study Woolf's sexuality and depression, doesn't he?

I felt like I'd wasted time reading this article at the weekend.

Also
"Today, he sits next to me by the lake in an outfit he made: a flowing, multicoloured patchwork T-shirt, and extremely abbreviated shorts that are, he points out, “quite like nappies”. 🙄

'The day after she met the writer Vita Sackville-West, Porter also points out, Woolf listed her moustache as one of her most impressive attributes. He says he is the first writer about Bloomsbury not to snigger at this'

He's going to retrotrans her for making a joke about female facial hair and stupid questions, isn't he?

It was probably a hot day, but I bet they would describe that outfit much less favourably if it were worn by a woman of the same age!

by coincidence I'm currently rereading Mrs Dalloway on holiday, great book. happy to confirm that VW was as bent as a nine bob note. would be less than happy to see her reimagined as trans, which thankfully doesn't happen here. womanhood was at the core of VW's life and work.

The three-part BBC TV drama 'Life in Squares' gives a wonderful insight into the lives of the Bloomsbury Set if anyone is interested. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3gKWvd8SL2fdfSTwn3xlGW2/the-bloomsbury-group

It's still available on DVD and on Amazon Prime.
And with young James Norton as Duncan Grant 😍

Oooh, I am at a loose end this afternoon - might settle down and watch that!

I subscribe to the Guardian because someone's got to, it would be awful if it wasnt there. But, dear God, it's like a student mag a lot of the time and very irritating.

I looked at the photo, Keynes seems to be leaning against a wall with his hand in his pockets, and it's exactly how I stand when leaning against a wall.

Couldn't be arsed to read the article, the Graun is so appalling these days.

That's not where a person's genitals are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_de_Menasce;Vanessa_Bell(n%C3%A9e_Stephen);_Duncan_Grant;_Eric_Siepmann,_1922.jpg

Oh, and look! Here's a guest, Jean de Menasce, covering his backside to protect himself from any passing erect penises...

😁

Oh no, I think he's enticing sexual dalliance with his direct gaze into the camera, the saucy man.

Another reason why they rejected formal attire was that they were FARMING THE LAND at/near Charleston during the war! That's how the men who were conscientious objectors contributed to the war effort (allegedly).
Everyone lent a hand, guests included I believe, so of course the women wore jodphurs/ trousers etc and not crinolines and corsets!

That's my evening sorted thank you.