The Pseudo Medieval Setting

[mishalak]

-OR-
Mishalak snarks about off the shelf fantasy kingdoms.

Yes I know about the Rough Guide to Fairyland. I keep on meaning to read it and perhaps I'm duplicating some effort here. But I've had a number of conversations about fantasy and what is realistic for fantasy. First of all anything is realistic for fantasy because anything is possible. Except sometimes I sit here saying to myself, "Wait a second, unless there is stuff going on that I don't see this doesn't make any sense."

One of the first things is the standard SCA medieval setting. Now I like this SCA, and I do like learning about the Middle Ages and recreating aspects of it without the nastiness of the setting. But the fact is that it wasn't just because men sucked (though they were literally forbidden to suck) that women, gays, and so on were oppressed. And so I often roll my eyes a bit when I see openly gay men and women living equal lives when otherwise the setting is obviously trying to evoke Europe sometime from A.D. 700 to 1500.

I know that there have been historical times and places where homosexuals were not persecuted, or at least not very much. It is certainly conceivable that the religion that the equivalent of Christianity in the pseudo medieval setting, there's nothing particularly required that homosexuality would be a sin. However the homosexuals would not be gay in the same sense that they are in the modern western world. The subculture that we have with its various stereotypes, in jokes, gay neighborhoods, and so on are a product of these times. It happened because openly homosexual individuals were very strongly persecuted. That produced an underground culture that eventually came out into the public as the influence of religion over the culture started to wane a bit and because the gays were inspired by the actions of blacks.

Because the modern sense of being gay, rather than just sometimes having sex with the same sex, is so linked to modern history I have a hard time figuring out a way to have a gay historical character. It is like having a science fiction fandom in medieval times. Unless there is a gate open to the past for the SCA members I really doubt it would happen.

The historical reason of the persecution of homosexuality was a tribe trying to expand and increase. The Israelites needed lots of children, because otherwise they could not hold their land and have enough people to fight in wars. Many, many children used to die before a better understanding of hygiene and slightly better medical technology. So the religion of the tribe had rules intended to cause the birth of as many babies as possible. Obviously if a guy is having sex with a guy there won't be children of that relationship. Since Christianity came from Judaism the old rule got carried over with the help of a healthy dose of bias in the culture it went into.

Next Time, Why Being A Woman Used to Suck

Comments

rambling about childbirth rates

[redbird]

Yes, gay in the modern sense is a cultural thing. So, for that matter, is straight: neither romantic love nor the idea that a mixed-sex couple should be good friends is anything like universal. That said, I think you're oversimplifying: the cultures (and it's a lot of different cultures, several hundred years of Europe and the Mediterranean aren't a single thing--and that's one of my pet peeves) supported significant numbers of people who had publicly chosen ways of living that meant they would never bear or sire children. There was room in various of these cultures for Vestal Virgins, celibate priests, desert hermits, and an assortment of monastic orders, some of which took in pre-adolescent children at the request of their parents.

Also, of course, there were people (men had more choice in such matters, for most of the cultures we know about) who had heterosexual intercourse only to the extent necessary to produce heirs, but whose hearts and/or lusts lay elsewhere. If a man's wife (or wives) is pregnant, it doesn't matter, in terms of population growth, whether he has sex with her, with another man, or with nobody at all for the next few months.

Another relevant point is that if the goal is to raise the maximum number of children to adulthood, a baby a year isn't usually the best way to do it ("usually" because modern medicine makes it far more likely that someone who bears 12 children will see them all grow up). Spacing the births out, and nursing each infant for at least a year, maybe two, increases the survival rate. Not only do orphans have a reduced survival rate (and bearing that many children wore women out), but prolonged nursing improves infant health, while spacing births lets the women regain body mass and reduces the chances of miscarriage.

Re: rambling about childbirth rates

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Yes, we understand now that having as many children in as short a space of time might not be optimal. However they couldn't do studies at the time because the idea of systematic studies had not come about and so people went with "common sense". That can work but it often will produce funny results and without contrary evidence the idea will often stick around, e.g. the idea that Europe is kept warm my the gulf stream proposed in 1857 and disproved only very recently. Also monogamy comes into it as well. If a guy gets sick with a sexually transmitted disease by having sex with someone other than his wife or wives, then that's going to greatly reduce the number of children he's going to be able to have.

Personal anecdote that doesn't prove anything time. Living the modern debauched gay lifestyle I've had a sexually transmitted disease. The only reason I could still theoretically have children should I desire to do so is our friend penicillin. Magic in a fantasy can take care of that problem, but only if it is common and easy to access.

None of this precludes a tribe like Israel from being tolerant of gays, but it doesn't make it terribly likely. And as I said, nothing about Europe made it inevitable that Christianity would be homophobic. But looking over history it seems that there was plenty of homophobia going around all through history. And the history of Christianity with all sex being bad in many theories and a cultural history that saw some or all homosexuals as less than men even where it was tolerated brought about the historical fact that it was not tolerated.

And yes Europe is not one thing. As a fan of Eastern Europe I know this very well. However once the idea that homosexual relations were evil got started it was hard to stop and was fairly universal in much of the Christan World and later that Western World. Gays were persecuted under communism unlike what apparently happened for most of Chinese history.

Re: rambling about childbirth rates

[redbird]

It doesn't take modern science to figure out the advantages of spacing births: the !Kung people (modern African hunter-gatherers) figured this one out a long time ago. Wet-nursing is also not a modern invention, and when calories are scarce, breast-feeding is a stronger inhibitor of fertility than it is for well-fed moderns.

Re: rambling about childbirth rates

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it is common. But I'd love to learn otherwise. It would be a great help to learn how common such knowledge for making a realistic setting.

Though my feeling is that if I was creating a culture that got it "right" about homosexuality I would have to have them get something else wrong. I've yet to run across a culture/religion that didn't have some warts. When I was building a sort of humanist/epicurean sort of religion for an alternate history story I gave them a certain number of less charming aspects, including some historical patronizing attitudes towards blacks and bias against Christianity. I thought those good choices for realistic deficits in modern eyes.

Re: rambling about childbirth rates

[sraun]

Have you read Diane Duane's Tales of the Five - AKA The Door into ... books?

If you haven't - it's an interesting pseudo-medieval culture with magic and open acceptance of gays. All men are required to sire one child, all women are required to bear two, by the Goddess. Said Goddess shows an active interest and fair presence in the world.

Re: rambling about childbirth rates

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Sounds like I should try it. See if I snark at it or not. <grin>

Actually...

[branfionn.livejournal.com]

Actually, I heard (from a 9th grade biology teacher, ok) that it was overcrowding. But if you look through history, you'll see a lot of brilliant and important gay people. Most of Greek philosophy and logic come from gay folk. The Amazons (women who cut off their *breasts* to get a good bow-and-arrow shot (man! I *am* one of those women!!!) Listen. People are rare and wonderful things!

I believe (as an ex-pagan atheist) that every sexuality with love (or adult consent) is peachy-fine! What's wrong with snugglies or sex amongst those that enjoy it, whomever they are. I'd rather see a happy gay couple than a bitchy married couple any day.

And I'd really like gay rights for marriage and work benefits. I'll sign on any line for that!

Re: Actually...

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Which was overcrowding?

Okay I'm gay, but it really annoys me when certain gay activists go around trying to claim everyone in history. I've looked at the evidence and for the most part it seems that there is no convincing evidence that these great minds were homosexuals.

I also hate the fact that they claim Lincoln and ignore Buchanan. I mean if we're going to claim the good on shaky (at best) evidence then we also have to take the very bad for whom there is much better evidence. (For anyone reading who doesn't know Buchanan is the US President right before Lincoln who all but tried to break up the Union. And he was a queer as $3. He supported slavery because his deceased lover, Senator Ruffus King of Alabama, supported it.)

Oh and the Amazons were mostly likely myths.

Re: Actually...

[branfionn.livejournal.com]

I'm not a gay activist. I am a heterosexual with a bisexual mate who has plenty of all kinds of persuasion friends.

How about Aristotle and Plato? That's what I was attempting to allude to.

And, actually, I think the overcrowding explanation is b.s.

My father was a Phd scientist at NASA. He taught me a healthy disrespect for "science" (usually 90% theory and bravado.)

So what I'm saying is hold your own truth because no one else knows it.

(paraphrase: don't take any....b.s.)


Keep your mind alive and it will serve you well.

Re: Actually...

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I don't think I had mentioned the overcrowding theory. That's why I am confused. I had been going on the Jews may have had a bias against homosexual because homosexuals didn't contribute to increasing the numbers of the tribe (in their view).

The thing is with Plato is that he idealized a very close sort of relationship, but not the sex. Even today we use the phrase "platonic love". He is, however, the foremost of the people for whom there is good evidence that they may have been homosexual.

Aristotle on the other hand disapproved of men who allowed themselves to be taken as women as I remember and specifically the common practice of older men having young boys as lovers. He was probably not a homosexual, though with any person in ancient history it is hard to say one way or another.

I wasn't saying you were a gay activist, just going off on my own rant. Unless we have a diary in which a person wrote intimate thoughts at length I think it very problematic to describe a historical person as homosexual or heterosexual, though obviously the best bet is them being heterosexual. It's just a thing with me. I don't like it when it seems like people are claiming an icon for their movement. People belong to themselves, not to nations or activists. Unless that person was an activist for that cause while alive it makes me roll my eyes.

Re: Actually...

[branfionn.livejournal.com]

Good. You're alert and alive. I was thinking you found that theory absurd and you weren't even thinking about THAT.

I think that homosexuality is exactly as ok as heterosexuality or bisexuality. And I have friends in all groups.

There are some fabulous people in history who were homosexual and gave us a lot! Artistically, literally, as examples of love, you name it!

And I might as well be a gay activist. I believe that gay rights' time has come. More than come. Gay folk and the n______ of the world (a la Yoko Ono) and it IS NOT RIGHT. You love whome you love. There's no flaw in love. Not that *I've* found!

Hon, I am on your side. I don't know your life but I want you to thrive.

Queer history 101

[axolotl-eyes.livejournal.com]

There is a lot of interesting things being said. I think I'd like to add another idea to the pot.

There were no homosexuals before the late 19th century. That is not to say that no homosexual acts took place. The men and women who partook of these acts were no different than anyone else. In some cultures (Classical Greek or Samurai Japanese) these acts were viewed as an expression of the strength of the bond between a man of stature and his servant. In others, though (Judeo-Christian) it became a sin. Not 'being gay,' but simply the act itself. Once punished or atoned, the person could go back to their regular lives without carrying the lifelong stigma of 'homosexual.' People who engaged in such acts came from every level of society (nobility, artists, merchants, clergy) but having committed such an act would not cause the people to self-identify as different from everyone else.

It was only with the dawn of psychoanalysis that the category of 'homosexual' came into being. From that point on, with one single act, a person's entire life could be orderly confined to a specific set of rules. Once the label came into being, it only followed that the identity of the 'homosexual' did as well. Once this idea was propagated through society, individuals who took part in homosexual acts started to self-identify as gay and things such as gay culture began to form. Before, these men and women poured their creative output into whatever they chose in their lives, seeing themselves as no different from anyone else. Now that they were officially 'different' no matter what they do, many chose to separate themselves from an unwelcoming society and instead focus on creating communities where these 'different' people could come together in safety.

Re: Queer history 101

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

That's why I used homosexual and gay, to try to differentiate between a sexual inclination and the culture that has developed. There is a group I didn't bring into it, bisexuals.

While perhaps the label made a difference for some bisexuals there is a group of solidly homosexual men. My ex-boyfriend tried to have sex with a girl in high school and he related that he couldn't get it up at all. My own experience was to have one encounter with a girl and simply not being as "turned on" by women. It might have gone either way for me before the label of homosexual was invented, though I suspect I would have lived a life of unsatisfied desire and fear. Like Michael Wigglesworth, that fire and brimstone preacher from Puritan New England, who revealed in coded diary entries that he was attracted to men and struggled with it all his life.

But atonment was rarely allowed unless a person was powerful. The penalty was death in most Western countries. It certainly was in most of the American colonies.