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.

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!

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.