Thread: Monogamy...huh?
View Single Post
  #54  
Old 04-08-2011, 09:15 AM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
When it was time for a man to marry, the wife chosen for or by him, after the wedding, would be put in a room, have her hair clipped short, be dressed in men's clothing and left alone in the dark. Her new husband, if he had the nerve, would come in and consummate. If he really didnt like women, this male drag requirement for sex could go on for months or years.
What I find funky about the Spartans is that they were supposedly under huge pressure to produce more high-class warriors to keep the numerous slaves under check and keep on doing what they did best - quarreling with Athens. So why not encourage high nativity practices? Maybe for them, male bonding was such crucial part of the military institution that high nativity could be sacrificed to upkeep that.

Or it might be that there were warring goals between different classes of society, i.e. the leaders wanted a lot more soldiers pronto, and the aristocracy wanted to ensure high class privileges by having as few heirs as possible to split family fortunes among, which is the explanation I've heard for rapidly sinking nativity among the Roman aristocracy in the beginning of the Imperial Era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
I heard about a culture in which it was believed (apparently) that semen gave you more testosterone, so boys were supposed to drink it (from the source) throughout teenage. Once they were adult, it was their turn to share the testosterone.
I can't remember where and when that was, though.
I think it's the Maasai.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opalescent View Post
The thing that is fairly new to Western society (and I would argue most non-Western societies) is the idea that sex is an activity that happens between equals.

A free, high status Roman man generally did not have sex with an equal - his wife, slaves, younger boys or men, and lower status free men certainly did not qualify. In fact, sex between male equals was looked at askance. "Roman Homosexuality" by Craig A. Williams is a brilliant book on this topic - he argues that degrees of free, unfree, dominant and submissive (and not the consenting, negotiated bdsm versions) are the critical categories, not hetero- and homosexuality.
Many people have read Foucault's History of Sexuality and said it argues with many of the same points. I think his central argument was that 'male homosexuality' was a diagnosis owing its birth to the birth of the modern science of sexology. Eve Kosofsky Sedwick and Lillian Faderman have argued similar points.

For a man, being a 'bottom' in homosexual sex has been considered damning, whereas male tops were natural and acted according to their gender role. Similarly, 'active' female homosexuals were considered to be the real misfits and perverts, whereas 'passive' (I'm guessing the one being penetrated) females in woman-to-woman sex did not lose status. In ancient India (as with the Romans), oral sex was considered so beyond the pale that no prostitute, let alone a wife, would consent to such a foul practice with their male partners. Male prostitutes were thus specifically kept to provide fellatio to upper class men.
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower
Reply With Quote