Was Christina Rossetti Bisexual?

[Oijl]

I can't find a satisfying source that gives any kind of confident answer. Her own brother is quoted as saying that Christina loved what's-his-face, her second boyfriend (or whatever they called it back in the 1800's), but then we have Goblin Market, and, well... I've never read more steamy lesbian poetry anywhere else.

So she seemed to like men, if her brother is to be believed, but I can't imagine that a straight woman would write Goblin Market, but I can't find any biogropher or article or such that says, definitely, "Yes, Christina Rossetti liked women!" I can make my own assumption, of course, but I kinda wonder what the professional consensus is.

Anyone have any sources that indicate her sexual orientation?

[137beth]

It's certainly possible. It's also possible her "love" for her boyfriend was either fake or platonic.

[BardicDuelist]

I think there are two problems here:

First, notions of sexuality and the labels applied to them change over time. There are people who like men and women today who vehemently do not identify as bisexual now (some identify as pansexual, others reject the labels, others say they exist on a spectrum, etc). We should avoid projecting our current understanding of sexual identity backwards.

There is no evidence that Rossetti ever used the term or an analogous one to describe herself. Given the norms of the time, it is not surprising that people close to her did not either.

The second problem is that you are basing your interpretation off of art and fiction. Writers use writing to explore different perspectives, not always their own and sometimes even diametrically opposed to their own.

So the real question is: Did Rossetti feel romantic or sexual attraction towards both men and women?

Rossetti had three serious, well known male suitors. She declined to marry each of them, and the reasons we have are differences in religious views.

There is no direct evidence that Rossetti ever had a female romantic or sexual partner.

Some of Rossetti's work explores Victorian sexual norms.

Basically: it's impossible to say. I think your interpretation of her work is valid, but would caution against inferring too much information about her from it without additional supporting evidence.

[veti]

There is no evidence that Rossetti ever used the term or an analogous one to describe herself. Given the norms of the time, it is not surprising that people close to her did not either.

Since the word "bisexual" was not even coined until near the end of Rossetti's life, it would be pretty impressive if anyone of her acquaintance had even known it...

The idea, as well as the word, was very new, and not considered a suitable topic for conversation at all, outside of some avant-garde psychological circles.

Nitpicking aside, I wholeheartedly agree with BardicDuelist's thoughts on this. I don't suppose there's any actual evidence either way, but if you use it as an assumption to analyse some of her works, it might cast an interesting (if speculative) light.

[loky1109]

Since the word "bisexual" was not even coined until near the end of Rossetti's life, it would be pretty impressive if anyone of her acquaintance had even known it...

The idea, as well as the word, was very new, and not considered a suitable topic for conversation at all, outside of some avant-garde psychological circles.
Words at all became existed not so long ago. Does that means nothing exist before words?

And I disagree that idea is new either. Idea of sexual attraction to both sexes exists at least as long as exist great apes. Maybe more.

[veti]

Words at all became existed not so long ago. Does that means nothing exist before words?

And I disagree that idea is new either. Idea of sexual attraction to both sexes exists at least as long as exist great apes. Maybe more.

Sure the thing existed, but it wasn't talked about. There weren't words for it. Just like sunburn has always happened, but it's only since the 1890s that people have talked about "ultraviolet".

And if you're asking for historical evidence of something, words matter.

[Eurus]

I think it's important to be careful with this. Yes, the word "bisexual" to refer to a sexual orientation didn't exist in Rossetti's time, and the ways that people think about sexuality and romance in general have changed a lot over time.

But also, humans have always been humans. The words we use are an imperfect attempt to describe feelings and states of being that have existed in some form for all of history. Even saying that it wasn't talked about is dubious. There are places and times where romantic feelings for people of multiple genders was taken as ordinary enough to not need to be commented on. Even in places where similar identities were marginalized, that doesn't necessarily mean that nobody was talking about it... just that they usually weren't doing so in places or ways that would cause them to be punished for it.

Christina Rossetti is dead, so we can't know for certain. But it's entirely possible for her life or feelings to be relatable to what we mean when we say "bisexuality".

[veti]

I think it's important to be careful with this. Yes, the word "bisexual" to refer to a sexual orientation didn't exist in Rossetti's time, and the ways that people think about sexuality and romance in general have changed a lot over time.

But also, humans have always been humans. The words we use are an imperfect attempt to describe feelings and states of being that have existed in some form for all of history. Even saying that it wasn't talked about is dubious.

Absolutely, times and notions of morality change dramatically, and there have been social environments in the past where bisexuality was considered quite normal.

But Rossetti, specifically, did not live in such a time. She was English, Victorian and middle class, a trifecta of sexual repression. Even talking about whom she liked would have been slightly daring, and if "liked" was allowed to encompass romantic feelings, then unless the person was a man who had shown clear signs of being interested in her, that "slightly daring" becomes "completely taboo, to the point where her interlocutor probably wouldn't believe their ears".

(This may be why so many Victorian middle-class women kept journals. They could write down, in secret, things they could never say in public, or even to their nearest friends and relations.)

So - yes, she may well have been bisexual. And if she was, she may not have realised it herself (because it Wasn't Talked About). Modern scholars can, absolutely, consider those possibilities when studying her work and discuss how it affects the perspective. That's all completely fair and reasonable.

But - evidence? Not likely. It's in the realm of speculation, and likely to remain there.