Flycatcher
Template:KylarisRecognitionArticle
In the Aguda Empire, a flycatcher (Ziba: ngemuozaibungai [ŋəmɯɒzaibɯŋai]) was a person employed in a household ostensibly to catch flies and other pests. However, later on in history, their role became that of prestige symbol or sexual object, or even sex worker, to an extent that this supplanted their role as pest control. Flycatchers were generally young men, seen as having the fast reactions, dexterity and physical endurance to do the job.
Flycatchers were a symbol of a household's wealth, sophistication and taste, and most of their role was simply to be seen (or even just known about), by visitors, passers-by and other members of the household. They were appreciated for their looks both by their employers and guests, and might in some sense be regarded as living sculptures. By their character and appearance, flycatchers advertised their employers' aesthetic refinement or sexual preferences. They were also expected variously to actually catch flies and deal with other pests (such as mosquitoes, spiders, rodents), to help with errands around the household, to be entertaining for guests and household members (such as by conversation or physical feats, such as fly-catching tricks), and to provide sexual services for members of the household or guests. If expected to provide sex, flycatchers generally had considerable control over when, where and how, in more the manner of a liaison (extramarital sex was broadly not illicit in Aguda society). The roles of flycatchers varied considerably from household to household and from time to time, dependent on the particular negotiated relationship between them and their employers, especially as the coy fiction was maintained that they were primarily pest control employees.
Only the wealthy could afford flycatchers on a full-time basis, though the relationship between flycatchers and their employers was not necessarily commercial; the relationship would often take on elements of patronage, especially with regard to interpersonal and sexual relations, even as the flycatcher might be receiving a more regular pay as a household employee. Flycatchers who were in demand (for their appearance or wit) often leveraged such for material gain, and it was a part of the cultural conception of the flycatcher that they were flighty and shallow, moving between patrons quickly or working for multiple households at a time (though most were more or less attached to a single household, and a single head of a household generally only had one flycatcher). Some flycatchers attained celebrity status, but it was never considered a respectable occupation for the upper classes. Flycatchers were also considered their employers' friends, however, or at least to an extent more than other domestic staff.
In the late Aguda Empire and its aftermath, the phenomenon died out, as it was banned owing to Euclean colonial influence, which saw the practice variously as adulterous, immodest, unhygienic, disturbed or homosexual (the practice becoming particularly associated with male homosexuality, even though probably more patrons were female). Moreover, the gentry was the most numerous class with the means to employ flycatchers, but it was also the class that converted to Sotirianity most readily, further reducing the practice's prevalence. Flycatching faded from public consciousness from the 19th to the 20th century. A revival of academic interest has taken place in the 21st century.
History
Origin
Domestic staff or professionals have been employed to deal with pests for millennia in Dezevau, utilising a variety of methods not limited to manual catching, but including poisoning, traps, fumes, and screens or coverings for doors or windows. The distinctive phenomenon of flycatchers is believed to have originated in early Dabadonga (founded 1472), though some assert its descent from earlier practices from Gobobudi.
Flycatchers were a kind of conspicuous consumption for the well-to-do households establishing themselves in the new imperial capital, especially under circumstances where personal reputations were not as well-established as in older cities, and where the architecture of the city was in flux. The commercial prosperity of the early Aguda Empire influenced a hedonistic, indulgent ethos among its beneficiaries. Even before flycatchers became associated with sexuality, employing one was a sign that one appreciated one's personal comfort (in terms of not being bothered by pests even temporarily), that one was willing to pay for it, and that one had style and taste in doing so.
The density and magnitude of population and activity in the city may also have concentrated to a greater population of pests which needed to be dealt with, or climatic shifts may have resulted in the same. Moreover, some ornamental or temperature-regulating architectural features common in Dabadonga may have contributed to the presence of flying insects indoors, though this is largely speculative. It is clear, at any rate, that flycatchers only mainly dealt with the few pests that slipped through to be nuisances to those in the household, and were not responsible for public sanitation, sealing building entryways, food safety and such.
Popularisation and sexualisation
Over only a few decades, flycatchers came to be associated with sexuality, as a kind of archetype in the flesh. Contemporary commentators wrote that it was inevitable that such virile, flighty, visible young men should attract attention, and that they should respond positively. In the context of a cultural milieu that accepted or even celebrated sexual desire, the physicality, idleness and visibility of flycatchers put them in a prime position to be an idealised object. Savvy and attractive flycatchers could also play into their desirability to earn more or receive gifts, without necessarily having to take on more duties.
To some extent, flycatchers assumed and exemplified the preexisting trend of liaisons between members of households and those they hired; flycatchers' rise could be tied to a possible decline in sexual relations between staff and household members, resulting from a trend of increased commercial and legal formality in the Aguda Empire. Even as they were formally employees, flycatchers came to occupy a medial social status between the household's staff and its members; this is reflected in some accounts where flycatchers regard the household's staff as their own to order around.
There are records of incidents and misunderstandings arising from confusion about the exact role of flycatchers. Sexual service was rarely if ever explicitly part of the terms of employment, but some patrons felt cheated or insulted where their advances were consistently rejected. Those who were employed purely to actually deal with pests took issue at times, but mostly the terminology changed, with the common term for them becoming "pest workers". It was especially relevant that children were employed as flycatchers originally because of their reactions, agility and idleness, but as the role was eroticised, it became unfashionable or even taboo to employ those who were too young. Children and others became pest workers, working more substantially to deal with pests in general, compared to the way in which flycatchers only dealt with the pests most immediately relevant to their patron's person. Pest control businesses and public works programmes came into being, further pushing flycatchers out of their traditional flycatching work. Pest control work was not limited to wealthy patrons, but was a business sector which was engaged by other businesses, poorer households, government, etc. By the 17th century, the connection between flycatchers and sexuality was paramount in the popular imagination, and pest work was altogether separate.
Under the Great Agudan Peace (beginning around 1563) flycatchers became fashionable throughout the empire, albeit mainly only in the provincial capitals where wealthy and urbane households congregated. Urban culture in provincial capitals took its lead from the capital, and it was the erotically charged notion of the flycatcher that was popularised therefrom. In some cities, in some periods, perhaps half of the households of the governing (bureaucratic) class had one or more flycatchers. The trend was more pronounced in core regions of the empire; in some less culturally integrated areas, the practice may have been seen with some distaste by locals. This kind of open and casual eroticism was impermissible according to Irfan, and Sotirian missionaries also noted the practice with considerable distaste (for reasons pertaining to purity, homosexuality, propriety, etc.), influencing the early Euclean discourse on Badi and the Aguda Empire.
Commercialisation
A variety of factors caused flycatching to converge with mainstream sex work in the middle to late Aguda Empire (from around the 18th century onwards), though they remained distinctive and prominent in the cultural eye. One was the retreat of the upper classes from public life, with many opting for increased privacy and wealth over public ostentation and prestige. This reduced the role of flycatchers as advertising status or taste. Another was agricultural overpopulation, wealth inequality and urbanisation which produced a large number of unemployed or underemployed poor in the cities. The cheapening of both domestic and sex work made the traditionally flighty rapport between the flycatcher and the patron difficult to maintain, because of the increased power imbalance and the many people vying to replace a flycatcher. On the other hand, a burgeoning and ambitious mercantile middle class sought to obtain the traditional indicators of prestige; their demand promoted the commercialisation, regulation and marketisation of flycatching.
Flycatching evolved into more of a style or fashion of regular sex work. Where the flycatcher lived with the household or worked for them full-time (which was more expensive), the expectation was that they were more-or-less available for service on demand, though most of their time was still spent idly. Some flycatchers were now part-time, however, making house calls at particular times, working for different employers on different set days, or being contracted for a period of time (sometimes only for a period when their employer needed to keep up appearances). The language and cultural understanding of flycatchers as mobile and transient were utilised to shore up the legitimacy of this new commercial reality. Increased control was exerted by employers over flycatchers' appearance and practices, often contractually. There was also the practice of flycatchers engaging in sexual performance for voyeuristic employers. Furthermore, some brothels adopted the aesthetics of flycatchers, or promoted themselves as being staffed by real flycatchers, but these institutions were seen as less tasteful, especially as they also did not integrate into the established traditions of brothels, such as its unique gender conventions. It should be noted that throughout this period, notwithstanding the lessened exceptionality of flycatchers, and outside of Irfanic or Sotirian regions, sex work continued to be generally normal, and essentially respectable if frivolous. It was a significant sector of economic activity in the cities, and it continued to retain religious significance in some contexts (though not for flycatchers).
Decline
Flycatching went into decline in the late Aguda Empire (around 1700 onwards) even before it was banned in 1851. Conversion to Sotirianity, shifts in gender roles, new sexually transmitted diseases and perhaps simply changes in taste are the main factors usually identified as relevant, in combination with each other.
Eucleans assumed responsibility for many imperial functions, negotiating or coercing concessions from the ailing empire. They coopted the upper classes of the empire, with Sotirianity being both an important method and end of doing so. Part of the trend of conversion to Sotirianity among the gentry was reaction against the liberal sexual mores of the Aguda Empire, also incorporating attitudes which Irfan similarly held (with which many were familiar already, owing to the proximity of the empire to the Irfanic world). Euclean cultural influence backed up the actual legal power Eucleans sometimes achieved under the auspices of the Aguda Empire, to condemn sex work and promiscuity.
The Aguda Empire also saw a shift towards a patriarchal society and system of government, which included the cultural and economic predominance of male heterosexuality (to the exclusion of men as sexual objects, and which saw sex work increasingly become the domain of economically disadvantaged women and mage). This shift was subtle, and its nature, causes and extent are contested in the scholarship; some contend that its influence on sex work was much less significant than the regulatory provisions put in place by Saint Bermude's Company and other Euclean colonial companies, which saw female sex work as a necessary evil and lucrative business opportunity, but male sex work as too far. Euclean Sotirian attitudes had a key hand in developments. In any case, it is clear that a historical situation where sex was commonly purchased by people of various genders from people of various genders shifted by the 19th century to one where overwhelmingly women and mage were providers, and most purchasers were men (including Euclean foreigners). As flycatching was broadly masculine, it was negatively affected by this shift. However, there is also evidence that flycatching simply became more feminised or androgynised in response, even if most of the people going into it were still male.
Part of the reaction against Aguda sexual norms, furthermore, was driven by a surge in sexually transmitted disease, or disease which was perceived to be sexually transmitted. It is difficult to be sure what the actual epidemiological situation was historically, but possible factors for an actual surge include: a general surge in disease owing to population density, food shortages, people movement; the introduction of new diseases or strains of diseases from around the world, mainly by Eucleans (such as syphilis); and changes in sexual practices which facilitated infection, such as an increase in the popularity of penetrative as opposed to non-penetrative sex. Even if a surge in disease was only perceived, however, it drove changes in sexual culture, resulting in a decrease in the popularity of flycatchers, with more socially closed models of sex work (e.g. those similar to concubinage) gaining popularity instead. This is in spite of the fact that flycatchers (if they were available for sex at all) already had much fewer partners than those at commercial brothels, and the fact that male homosexual sex was still more often non-penetrative.
Despite its decline from in its heyday, flycatching was still substantially practiced at the time that it was banned at the instigation of the Gaullican Saint Bermude's Company in 1851 (along with many other practices, under the aegis of criminalising homosexuality and restricting sex work). The laws often went unenforced or were circumvented (as it could be difficult to prove what exactly someone was hired for or what they had done in private), but enforcement, stigma and changing circumstances meant the decline continued to the point that the practice was extinct by the 20th century. The decline was so precipitous that by the late 19th century, the term "flycatcher" had made a limited comeback for the description of pest control workers.
Role
Hiring
The most common way for flycatchers to be hired (perhaps in common with domestic staff generally) was for them to present themselves at the entrance to the house, and to ask if there was work. The responsible person of the household would invite them in to see, or hire them on the spot if so pleased; it was also not uncommon to ask them to kill a fly on the street then and there to demonstrate their skills. This was an effective process because there were only so many households in a city able and willing to hire flycatchers, with such households being large and well-known. A base rate of pay was usually promised at hiring; though it was often not high, it came with the implied or express promise of bonuses or gifts for the relationship or status was to be cultivated thereafter.
Physique
While catching insects is not especially physically strenuous, and does not require muscle bulk, it does require some degree of fitness and agility. The physique that came to be associated with flycatchers was a lean, even wiry, mildly muscled medium build. Though most flycatchers were male, this was the case for female and mage flycatchers as well. A variety of heights were seen, though shorter was more common (for men; female flycatchers were generally average height).
Flycatchers were expected to maintain their physique to some extent from the time of hiring, which was mostly not a problem; their youth and job meant that they generally had fast metabolisms and some physical exercise. However, it was apparently a trend common enough to be written about that flycatchers would become flabbier, softer and lighter-skinned after securing a position at a good household, because of the time they spent idle and indoors, and because of their richer diets. This was objected to by some employers, especially where the change was extreme, but mostly it does not seem to have caused an issue; a softer physique was apparently even more attractive to many, and lighter skin was broadly considered more attractive and prestigious in the Aguda Empire.
A significant minority of flycatchers did not have the typical physique, however. This was often because of the personal predilections of their employers.
Appearance
Flycatchers had considerable personal autonomy over their day-to-day appearance within certain bounds of good taste, but it was not unknown for their employers to make requests or even demands. An apparently common occurrence was a patron purchasing or providing funds for some clothing or cosmetic for the flycatcher, which the flycatcher might keep for themselves or keep the change from.
The archetypal flycatcher had loose medium (shoulder) length hair, no facial hair, and light or no cosmetics. Flycatchers sometimes received a stipend for the upkeep of their appearance.
Longer, loose hair was associated with health and freedom, though it would become unwieldy if left too long. Perhaps the most popular style was the "lion's mane", whereby hair sat on the shoulders and framed the face. Short hair was also common because of its ease of maintenance and comfort in hot, humid weather, though balding was seen as undesirable. Some flycatchers may have dyed their hair. Products were often used for styling the hair, especially to make it softer or glossier; powder from bird down feathers was one unusual product for this purpose.
Facial hair was not the fashion throughout most of the Aguda Empire, though most of the people of the empire were not phenotypically predisposed to grow significant facial hair in any case. Shaving of body hair may also have been common, though most people of the Aguda Empire were also not phenotypically predisposed to grow that much body hair.
Makeup was used by some flycatchers, depending on personal preference. Eyeliner was common, as were oils, creams or powders for making skin lighter or smoother (for both the face and the rest of the body). Naturalistic lipsticks and perfume were also used. Styles did not vary that much across gender. Foreign flycatchers with naturally much lighter or darker skin were considered exotic; skin cosmetic usage would have differed for them.
There were a few commonly worn styles of clothing for flycatchers, though there was considerable variation beyond these. One was the tunic, similar to the Solarian tunica, which was a common and basic style throughout the Aguda Empire; it was a loose-fitting one-piece garment with short or no sleeves, hanging from the shoulders down to near the knees, and tied at the waist. A popular flycatching variation on the tunic had substantial opening at the sides below the arms down to around the waist, often combined with a lower neckline; this allowed for somewhat more freedom of movement, exhibited the physique better, had better ventilation, and somewhat complimented one's height and slimness by emphasising vertical lines. Another style was defined by a garment which covered essentially only the shoulders and the top part of the chest (usually covering breasts, but only sometimes cut to reach the nipples on a flat chest) being attached by the neck or sleeves only around the upper arm; it has been translated as quarter-shirt, and is similar to but not exactly like a shawl or crop top. This would be combined with a simple skirt on the lower half, from between the waist and hips to near the knees. A style which omitted the upper garment entirely and consisted only of a skirt was also common. Finally, full nudity was a somewhat less common but also established style, though it was usually combined with jewellery, footwear or some other obvious accessory, as nudity was only stigmatised in Aguda society only insofar as it implied poverty.
Clothing was generally made of cotton or linen, like most other clothing in the Aguda Empire, because of its comfort when working in hot and humid conditions. Silk, more expensive, was also known, usually as a boon of the employer. A variety of colours were used, though plain and simple designs were favoured, as it allowed the focus to be on the flycatcher's body, and also in reflection of their formally subordinate status within the household. Generally, the cut and composition of flycatchers' clothing reflected the agility required for catching pests, as well as the possibility of needing to dress or undress at short notice.
Pest control
The flycatcher's main responsibility was to deal with pests which were a nuisance in the household as they appeared. The archetypal pest was the fly, which was difficult to catch but whose annoyance was outsized due to its persistence, sound, speed and tendency to land on people and food. Flycatchers dealt with other pests, however, such as cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, snakes, lizards, and even birds on occasion. They were not responsible for the maintenance of the household more broadly, or measures taken to deal with pests generally (such as the sealing of entrances or incense or burners set to drive them away, though smoke could also slow flies enough to make it easier for flycatchers to get them). Their responsibility was only to deal with those pests that got through such general measures as they came, and as they were causing a disturbance. When the flycatcher was not doing such, and not doing other things (such as errands or sex), they were idle, often simply standing in some visible place in the house.
Higher-end flycatchers would deal with pests in a showy, elegant or otherwise performatively impressive way, showing off their skills and physique in the process. Some flycatchers were skilled performers in this field, and some variety performance groups had flycatching-like acts in imitation.
The symbolic object of the flycatcher's office was a flat-ended cane, narrower than a modern flyswatter's paddle. It was narrow to allow for the precise hitting of bugs, even in tight spaces, but was difficult to use without the requisite precision because of its small surface area. Other tools used (dependent on the pest and the flycatcher's personal preference) included clappers, resembling two flyswatters and intended for killing insects midair, nets, brooms and large flat swatters. The point was usually to kill the pest with a blow, but sometimes it would be captured and killed or released, especially where it might dirty the surface it was killed upon. Tools were generally made of wood, bamboo, rattan or like materials, to avoid damaging furniture or the building. There is at least one example in literature of these tools being used playfully to hit people with (the early modern novel Zadoaganu), though used bug-killing tools would necessarily be quite dirty, so this may not have been common in practice.
Sexual activity
Until around the 18th century, probably only a minority of flycatchers regularly had sex with their patrons (or anyone else of status in the household). Their primary status was as symbols, to demonstrate the good taste and standing of the household; sex work was already institutionalised and accessible outside of flycatching. Sex was not necessarily uncommon, but it was probably not part of the relationship of employment, and more a result of flycatchers being personally willing (either for pleasure or for personal advancement), and their ostensible status as desirable. Though sexual orientation was not considered fixed in the Aguda Empire, there are records of flycatchers who chose or reject employers based on their own gender preferences. Flycatcher employment remained formally to attend household duties. If anything, flycatchers may have been more likely to have a liaison with other household staff, who would have been closer to them in social class. Of course, the historical record is relatively sparse and unsystematic about this sort of thing.
In the late Aguda Empire, the pressure on flycatchers to be sexually available increased, particularly because of increasingly concentrated inequality between employer and employee. Even then, however, many flycatchers did not have sex as part of their employment, and those that did often retained considerable autonomy; the attraction of flycatchers was of a different type to conventional sex work, more based upon an ongoing personal relationship and role in the household than upon transaction.
Where sex did occur, a variety of sex acts was common, dependent on the employer's wishes as well as the flycatcher's willingness to fulfil them. In Dezevauni culture, "symmetrical" sex was considered spiritually proper, better for pleasure or fashionable (with "asymmetrical" sex being associated with procreation); this fashion extended to flycatchers.[1] Frotting, tribadism and mutual masturbation were comparatively more common than anal or penile-vaginal sex. Intercrural was also a popular position. In the late Aguda Empire (especially from the 1750s onwards), however, being the receiving/penetrated partner in vaginal, anal or non-mutual oral sex came to be associated with low social status, and the flycatcher would more often take that position.
There was also a practice of flycatchers engaging in sexual activity for the employer to watch. This was seen as less onerous than actual sex, and was mainly in the middle to late Aguda Empire. A rise in this practice may have been tied to increased sexual reservation and privacy.
Employers
The employers of flycatchers were generally the heads of households or otherwise adults with wealth and a reputational status to uphold; they were bureaucrats, the cream of the merchant class, dynasts, government leaders. This was only a very small percentage of the population, but it was the wealthiest, most powerful portion, and almost entirely concentrated in the cities. A flycatcher was almost always only one among at least about ten other domestic staff. Patrons ranged in age; though most wealthy, powerful people were older adults, there are instances of young adults hiring flycatchers older than themselves where they had the means. It is debated what the balance of gender was; it has been suggested that most flycatcher employers were women, but men kept them on more consistently, and comprised most of the high-end market. In the late Aguda Empire, men dominated the sex-purchasing market, and flycatchers may have been an exception to women usually handling household staff hiring decisions. At least some of the wealthy, powerful Eucleans who lived in the Aguda Empire as part of the colonial project hired flycatchers, though this fell off as governance moved from less regulated trading companies to direct national oversight.
Socioeconomic status and demography
Flycatchers were mostly young, male, lower class citizens. They came from both the countryside and from urban areas (geguoni and juni respectively, also some domoni), with it being a first job of many recent immigrants to the city. The average age of a flycatcher was about 16 to 25; roughly speaking, it was after the completion of puberty, but before any wrinkles began to appear. Flycatching was seen as a young person's job, not only because they were in their physical and sexual prime, but because it was a job with low barriers to entry. People with little wealth found flycatching to be a quick way to earn a living, whereas, say, artisanal work was difficult to get into without significant investment in training. The corollary was that flycatching was also a field with relatively high turnover, and few could stay in it for more than a few years as youthful good looks faded. Many started their working lives as flycatchers, and built off that to find a more substantial job after a few years.
Flycatching was not seen as disreputable, but it was seen as somewhat frivolous, not involving serious exertion or skill, and having limited opportunities for advancement. Yet, it was among the best paying jobs that a young, untrained person could find in a city; it was a springboard for economic advancement, even if it was not a position of any higher social standing than the bulk of the urban working class. Inasmuch as flycatchers worked for the rich and powerful, their connections could also be helpful. It was not uncommon for them, as a favour, to help a departing flycatcher become established in some other field, and so become part of the extended household or patronage network.
For some flycatchers, however, whose patrons were particularly powerful or generous, it could be a path to much more significant status and advancement. Flycatchers sometimes became trusted confidantes of their patrons, often as having come from humble backgrounds, they had no other loyalties in the world of the powerful. In some cases, they attained status in their own right, controlling household affairs, rising to become the primary spouse of their employer, or being appointed to positions of public importance. A significant number of lasting partnerships began as flycatcher and employer.
Inasmuch as flycatching was perceived as frivolous, however, and given the lowly background of most flycatchers, a rise in social class could be fraught. It could isolate them from their support network in lower classes, especially within the household staff itself, and make them visible in an social environment they were unfamiliar with. An example of this dynamic is in the violence that was visited upon flycatchers during Solar Madnesses (outbreaks of popular sentiment which generally targeted the powerful, mighty and visible) in circumstances where they did not have the resources to flee ahead of time or hire guards. Flycatchers who attained higher office were often resented because it was perceived that their rise was not due to merit, but favouritism or extraneous factors such as their looks; in some cases, it was considered outright impropriety or corruption. Nonetheless, there are records of flycatchers who later successfully maintained high office after getting a start through patronage. Perhaps the most famous example is Gaigazuga, who rose to be the extraordinary minister for famine relief for the whole Aguda Empire in the early 18th century, until his dismissal at the urging of the Gaullican Saint Bermude's Company (shortly before the Great Peasants' Revolt).
Those who were long-term flycatchers frequently were or shifted toward mage, even though they were otherwise not part of culturally institutionalised sex work. In the late Aguda Empire, in combination with the declining status of women and the increasing economic subjection of urban workers, flycatchers increasingly became feminised.
Legacy
Art and literature
.jpg)
In the Aguda Empire, much art and literature was made which included or focused on flycatchers. They were the most accessible artistic muses in some sense, a character archetype in fiction, and a stock object of affection in poetry, songs and the like. They appeared in illustrated pornography, as side characters in critiques of the elite, and in a variety of roles in plays. Some of the most significant pieces of art of the Aguda Empire are about flycatchers, such as the novel Zadoaganu. Surviving documents from the Aguda Empire are the richest sources on flycatchers today, and are substantially the reason why so much is known about them. The corollary danger, however, is that these sources may be biased towards the concerns and beliefs of their makers, who were mainly the upper class (who tended to employ flycatchers). It may have been fashionable to express longing or affection as a literary style without actually meaning it. Business contracts and regulations are an important source for tempering flycatchers in the historical record.
After the rise of queer liberation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, flycatchers have become a popular subject in historical fiction. They have featured in speculative historical novels, plays, episodic shows, feature films, short stories, poetry, themed pornography and more, contributing to the present-day perceptions of the flycatcher as a body type or gender/sexual archetype.
Historiography
There are a variety of attitudes towards flycatching as a historical phenomenon. In the colonial period, it was seen as one of a variety of exploitative, decadent, immoral practices which had been stamped out by the Euclean/Sotirian civilising project. However, with the rise of decolonisation, feminism, queer liberation and other new social movements in the 20th century, this attitude was challenged and demainstreamed.
Socialists in the early 20th century, despite their opposition to colonisation, were modernist, and essentially inherited colonial views. Flycatching, in common with sex work, was considered unproductive and exploitative. However, at least in Dezevau, the deplatforming of Sotirian ideals and social liberalisation saw a freer attitude to sexuality come in, and academic interest in flycatching began in earnest after the Cultural Revolution of 1980.
Feminists and queer activists and scholars disagreed about sex work. While the importance of sexuality was foregrounded post-Cultural Revolution, some considered its commercialisation to be inherently exploitative and undesirable, an intrusion of the logic of productivism into people's personal lives. Others saw this as an exceptionalism which denied autonomy to those who were willing to trade in sexual activity or objectification. In this context, flycatchers were made relevant to contemporary debates about ideas such as objectification, body image, consumption, power within intimate relationships and the definition of sex work. Some accused others of homophobia on the subject. Flycatchers were seen by some as a symbol of queer liberation. They were also written about by philosophers broadly, sometimes analogically, in analysis of proto-capitalism and capitalism, elites, social relations, superstructure, etc. César wrote about them in analysing the human body and its relationship to power, and subjectivity.
Socially conservative (especially Sotirian) opposition to flycatchers (as a byword for early modern Dezevauni sexual mores) still exists, though criticism in the present day focuses more on flycatchers' young age, and an attitude of shallow consumerism towards sexuality.
Cultural symbol
With the public rediscovery of flycatchers via historical literature and academic study, they have become somewhat of a trope, archetype or sex symbol in Dezevau and beyond. The contemporary concept of the jemene (a young man of good looks, comparable to a dandy, or like a himbo but slimmer) has become associated with the historical notion of the flycatcher, as well as the idea of the catboy to an extent. Popular manifestations of the flycatcher include character in historical fantasy, cosplay, fanart costume and pornographic parody character. A subculture of queer people identify with the term to describe their sexual or gender expression, albeit possibly substantially ironically. Some academics have expressed concerns about ahistorical depictions whitewashing serious issues around power imbalance and exploitation, while others see it as only a playful engagement and not an uncritical endorsement of a practice that essentially cannot be contextualised in modern societies.
See also
References
- ↑ Nhimevu. (c. 1700). Ethical Treatise. World Culture.
Bibliography
- Vitiello, Giovanni. The Libertine’s Friend: Homosexuality and Masculinity in Late Imperial Dezevau. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226857954.001.0001.
- Wu Cuncun. “The Plebification of Male-Love in Late-Jiao Fiction: The Forgotten Tales of Longyang.” In Changing Shangean Masculinities: From Imperial Pillars of State to Global Real Men, edited by Kam Louie, 72–89. Kintao: Kintao University Press, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/27721172/The_Plebification_of_Male_Love_in_Late_Ming_Fiction_The_Forgotten_Tales_of_Longyang.