Casual Sex in a medieval setting?

[The Dark One]

For me, an awful lot doesn't need explanation or justification if the story is engaging. For instance, I enjoyed the two most recent Narnia movies, especially Prince Caspian, and I didn't need an explanation of why/how animals can talk in that word or why there should be multiple kings and queens—brothers and sisters!—in a single kingdom.

I was always creeped out by the kings and queens being brothers and sisters in Narnia, and yet the reality of royal incest in ancient Egypt doesn't bother me at all.

I guess it's the mores of the cultures in which those narratives were generated. The Egyptians prized the purity (as they saw it) of bloodlines, whereas CS Lewis created Narnia in the C20. I've only read the first book, in which there was no sex - I daresay it's all entirely innocent - and yet, I couldn't help but imagine all implications of his creation.

CS Lewis would probably roll in his grave to read this thread.

 

[skip.knox]

There's a bunch of interesting points brought up here. At the center, I'd like to suggest thinking in terms of influence rather than control, and of multiple centers (centers of influence, of authority, of power, etc.). Doing so makes room for nuance, which is where the good stories lie.

So on this topic of compliance, one has to ask: compliance with what? What specific practices were intended to be enforced? Church every Sunday? Taking communion? Public testimony? Once we've identified a few, then the question becomes by what means were these enforced, and by whom, and how often? These are things that can be documented. That way, when we say the Church kept people in line, we'll know what that means.

Fifth View's approach of vertical and horizontal is a good one, but I go back to my suggestion about multiple centers. Thanks to those power pyramids we all learned in high school (and even in college), we have a clear and convenient picture of one king with nobles beneath and commoners under that, with a parallel power structure that started with the pope at the top. That's deeply misleading. It was an ideal promulgated by many writers over the centuries, and one which various individuals and movements strove to make reality, but they usually fell far short of the mark. What you had in any one place and time was layers of authority overlapping and competing and even contradicting one another, none of them terribly effective save by fits and starts.

To reply to something specific: FifthView, local influence was not at all what the bishop or Rome would have hoped. We have many complaints about the ignorance of the parish priest. There are examples of priests who did not know Latin, who recited Mass and even the Creed by rote and who got even that wrong, so that he was speaking gibberish. The well-meaning bishop might bring in an educated man to serve as priest, but he was an outsider, not of the pays, and was ignored or even reviled by the villagers. So, yeah, the local priest might be an influencer, but he might be influencing in unorthodox directions. Maybe the reforming bishop could exert some authority, but it might also be that the local baron told him to keep his hands off. And anyway he and the bishop were cousins. And reformers from Rome might look at this and call it corruption, while the locals called it just good common sense. All that might seem comparatively innocuous, but it's also how the Cathar heresy managed to take deep root in Languedoc.

Short version: if you want to write about top-down authority and struggles against oppression, go modern or future. We live in the age of authoritarianism and imposed consistency. If you want to write about messy, overlapping, and contradictory orders that are inconsistent even internally and are erratic externally, then go medieval. It's also the age when relations were more personal than impersonal. IMO, GRRM actually does rather a good job of this. I'm less enthused by his storytelling, but the world building is pretty solid.

 

[Nighty_Knight]

Keep in mind. Orgies were a thing back then. (Not a casual regular thing, but they did happen)

That’s all I wanted to add, just thought of it recently and thought I would throw it out there.

 

[The Dark One]

Orgies were a thing in particular cultures at particular times. Certainly a big thing among the Vikings (involving both consenting and non-consenting participants), and rumoured to be a thing in Wiccan and even some monastic communities.

Bearing in mind also that classical Rome was not part of the medieval period.

I would distinguish between recreational sex (which has been around forever) and casual sex, which I'd suggest is very much a post-pill thing.

 

[skip.knox]

>Orgies were a thing back then
Back when? Not sure what time period you're talking about.

I'd love to see some sources from The Dark One. Monastic orgies? Viking orgies? Give us a lead or two!

 

[The Dark One]

OK, off the top of my head... the Malleus Malificarum spoke of orgies with Satan. Henry VIII's commissioners seeking evidence worthy of monastic dissolution uncovered (so they said) numerous accounts of orgies. Both of these come at the beginning of the early modern period and both are of questionable veracity but they are surely evidence at least of rumour within the relevant period.

A favourite anecdote I came across in my own studies was of a witch hunter (maybe this was in the MM?) who on several occasions came across groups of women lying stupefied with broom handles inserted...erm… Anyway, I had to wonder, is this where the idea of witches flying broomsticks came from? If the broomsticks were daubed with a narcotic potion it may well have been ingested that way. That also would count as an orgy.

 

[skip.knox]

So, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was published in 1487 and Henry went after the monasteries in the 1530s. Taking the whole thousand-year sweep of the Middle Ages, that's a pretty narrow window and it'd be worth talking about why we get references to orgies in that particular era. In much the same vein we get condemnations of bathhouses as places for ... unregulated sex, with perhaps orgies implied.

Those particular examples, though, aren't documented cases of orgies, but are essentially literary inventions for socio-political purposes. One has to define orgy before being able to say one has found an example in the sources, and I don't believe this is the place to explore those kinds of details. There has been a good deal of research on the topic of medieval sex, so I'll let interested parties explore if they wish.

But examples of Roman-style orgies in the Middle Ages? I don't know of any, which of course doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'd be glad to hear of references. To go back to the OP, it is not a historical question. "Casual sex" isn't a term that was used in the Middle Ages.

 

[The Dark One]

Now now Skip, I'm the one who has consistently reminded people the medieval period was very far from a monoculture, so no need to throw that at me.

You asked for sources, so given that the printing press was only invented at the end of the medieval period (indeed it was a major reason for the end of the middle and the start of the early modern) surviving sources will be few. I gave a couple of sources that supported my assertion of the rumour of orgiastic behavior, which I'm contending were just formalisations of long standing rumour. There are plenty of accounts of the lengths to which some Abbots went to dissuade the randy monks from getting at each other (or sometimes at local nuns) so Henry's commissioners would have had no trouble convincing their audience. I also said myself that both documents had to be regarded with some suspicion given the purposes for which they were created.

Interesting side note on the randy monks... I've had it claimed to me (I'm a lawyer) by a disgraced priest (who is in prison for a long, long time) that the vow of chastity applies only to women (to prevent priests having children) and that anything goes among men. I'm not suggesting his view is universal but it does explain a bit...

 

[skip.knox]

I didn't mean to be throwing anything at anyone!

By sources I meant secondary sources which, if academic, are in turn based on primary sources. I had in mind publications by John Boswell on homosexuality, or on sex and law by James Brundage, or the works of Ruth Karras. Those are all rather dated now (as am I!), so here's a biblography for those of you following along at home.
ENG505 Working Bibliography (Medieval Sex)
I'd say there's easily fifty books listed, and that bibliography is a decade old. In short, we know quite a bit about medieval sexuality, especially from the later Middle Ages.

I should probably repeat that this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but is offered mainly to let people know that if they want to puruse further, there are ample resources. Most, alas, available only at your university library, but that's where all the good work is anyway.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I'm wondering if the discussion should focus just on the medieval period. Yes, the OP (and topic title) mention the medieval setting. But is there a big difference between periods in the consequences of sex before the invention of birth control methods? Romans got just as pregnant and had about the same healthcare (and as such the same risks in childbirth). Same with the early modern period. The OP focuses on the dangers of pregnancy as a reason why people would not want to get pregnant. But if those dangers are the same across different periods, then all those periods can be used as input for the discussion.

People's attitude towards sex changed throughout the years. But that just shows that the consequences and dangers have little effect on how people actually approach it. And that it wasn't the consequences, but cultural factors that determined how people viewed sex (casual or not).

Which means that as a writer you can do pretty much whatever you want, as long as there's a solid cultural reason for doing so. You can go full roman orgies or go with the most pious, monogamous no sex before marriage society you want. Though it should be noted that in the latter case, it will still happen (just look at deeply religious communities today where pre-marital sex is forbidden), it will just be more hidden.

 

[FifthView]

People's attitude towards sex changed throughout the years. But that just shows that the consequences and dangers have little effect on how people actually approach it. And that it wasn't the consequences, but cultural factors that determined how people viewed sex (casual or not).

I agree.

Also, there's the problem of looking at a single topic through a single lens. Attitudes and cultures are more complex than that. Earlier today I read an article online that explored the way medieval attitudes (or knowledge, such as it was) about healthcare influenced attitudes toward sex. For example, instead of looking only through the prohibitive lens of medieval Christian doctrine re: sex, which would seem to limit the sex that occurred, consider also some of the wacky ideas about healthcare that may have influenced attitudes: celibacy was considered dangerous to your health! So limiting sex could go too far. (Here's the link to the article, for anyone interested: Getting down and medieval: the sex lives of the Middle Ages | Aeon Essays)

But this returns to my original thoughts on the subject. A culture and society are far too complex to reduce to any sort of single lens view. This goes for fictional as well as historical societies. Sure, some generality can be made. Plus, we normally need to spend far more time telling a story than simply world building a fictional world, so broad strokes are sometimes needed. But a fictional world that doesn't also have X, Y, Z in its history and cultural development need not strictly follow the historical world that had those things. Too many factors combine to shape societies.

 

[Prince of Spires]

A culture and society are far too complex to reduce to any sort of single lens view.

You could take this even further, a single person is far too complex to reduce to his culture. Culture will affect how a person makes his actions visible to the outside world, but not if he does something or not.

Simple example. In certain religious communities in the Netherlands it is (or was) socially not accepted to watch tv on Sundays. So, people would simply close their curtains and watch tv anyway. Same with casual sex. Orgies are, in the USA, taboo, especially if you're married and your wife doesn't know about you being in them. So, Tiger Woods hid the fact that he had them a lot (and had the subsequent fallout when the news came out).

 

[BJ Swabb]

I found this in my research as I wanted to know about this subject as well. Hopefully this helps with known more about the women and sexuality in the medieval times. Medieval female sexuality - Wikipedia

Also to add with this is the age in which back then was appropriate for one to be an adult. Making laws involved arrangements for children, because they could not be expected to bear the same responsibilities and penalties as adults. Medieval law-makers tended to place the boundary between childhood and adulthood at puberty, coventionally 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Traditionally the age at which individuals could come together in a sexual union was something either for the family to decide or a matter of tribal custom. Probably in most cases this coincided with the onset of menarche in girls and the appearance of pubic hair in boys, that is, between twelve and fourteen, but the boundaries remained fluid. In much of classical Greece this was true of both same- and opposite-sex relationships. In Republican Rome, marriage and the age of consent were initially private matters between the families involved. Not until the time of Augustus in the first century c.e. did the state begin to intervene. Marriage then legally became a two-step process, a betrothal which involved an enforceable agreement between the heads of two households, and then marriage itself. Women who were not yet of age could be betrothed with the consent of their fathers, but the woman herself had to consent to marriage.

The Roman tradition influenced peoples and cultures with whom it had come in contact. In the Islamic tradition following Muhammad, betrothal could take place earlier than puberty, perhaps as early as seven, but the marriage was not supposed to be consummated until the girl menstruated and was of age. In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. Such a marriage would be permanent as long as neither party sought annulment before reaching puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys) or if they had already consummated the marriage. Even if the husband had technically raped his wife before she reached puberty, the marriage was regarded as consummated. It was this policy which was carried over into English common law, and although consent was necessary, force and influence or persuasion seemed to have been permissible elements. Similarly Gratian's ideas about age became part of European civil law.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well this thread is *ahem* interesting. With the previous post there, that wiki is more about the lawful facts, *cough* which would have been made by men, and is not about how women would have viewed sex or their own sexuality in medieval times. Not that this thread is recent or anything.

 

[pmmg]

Which wiki is that?