Gender and Sexuality

'Work in Progress -- The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:33, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

1 – Sexuality is a social construct, variable across time and space. It is difficult to talk about “sexuality in the Middle Ages”, because concepts of sexuality in the thirteenth century were different in northern France and southern Italy, and concepts of sexuality in England alone changed between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. Several generalizations, however, can be made about broad sub-regions of Medieval Europe. 2 – They did have sexual identities, but they were focused more on a dichotomy between reproductive/non-reproductive, due to the major social influence of having a celibate clergy. “Homosexual” and “Heterosexual” did not really conceptually exist as distinct categories. There were men who had sex with men, and men who had sex with women, but this was seen as a sex act, not an identity. 3 – Active/Passive sex act dichotomy played a major role in shaping views on sexuality. Fundamentally, men and women were not perceived of as performing the same action when they had sex with each other. Sex was not a mutualistic and shared experience, but transitive. Sex was conceived of as something a male did to a female. At the same time, a stereotype existed that women desired sex more than men – but they desired having something done to them, not doing it “with” a man. They wouldn’t say that women “screw”, but that they “get screwed”.

In turn, this leads to another major point about medieval sexuality: it was very “phallocentric”, and indeed strictly defined as “penetrating someone else with a penis”.

There was not so much a divide between “Heterosexual” and “Homosexual” as between “Active” and “Passive”, or “the one who penetrates” (male) and “the one who gets penetrated” (female).

Perhaps the largest difference between sexuality in the Middle Ages and in contemporary society is that conceptually, “sexual orientation” was not defined by object choice, but by role preference. Males were not conceived of as “masculine” because they were attracted to female bodies as a sex object; instead it was defined as “prefers to be the penetrator in the sex act, not the one who gets penetrated”.

As a result, so long as a male was the one doing the penetrating, he was not conceived of as abnormal – regardless of whether he was penetrating females or penetrating other males.

Only males who enjoyed being penetrated by another male’s penis were perceived of as abnormal.

Meanwhile, medieval concepts of sex were so phallocentric that it was not conceptually understood that two women could even have sex with each other: given that sex was strictly defined as “penetrating someone else with a penis”, and two women were not doing this, it wasn’t conceived of as sex. It was not accepted, nor was it stigmatized. The celibate male priesthood who wrote about sexuality could not really conceive of such intimate contact between two women as “sex”.

4 – Moreover, gender behavior of active/masculine or passive/feminine, played a fundamental organizing role: they saw them as inherently linked.

The term “Sexuality” refers to the whole realm of human erotic experience. This can be further subdivided into three aspects: Sex, Gender, and Orientation. “Sex” means physical/biological sex at birth, male or female. “Gender” refers to patterns of behavior or identity, such as “masculine” or “feminine” (not necessarily involved with the sex act at all, but day-to-day personality and identity). “Orientation” refers to what type of people a person is attracted to sexually: male bodies, female bodies, both, etc. (Karras 6-7)

In early 21st century parlance, one might be a “cis-gendered homosexual male” – meaning biological male who is only sexually attracted to male bodies, yet whose gender behavior pattern is masculine, not effeminate (“Cis” means “exhibiting gender behavior typically associated with your biological sex – masculine males, feminine females – while “Trans” means gender behavior commonly associated with the opposite sex, i.e. a male who behaves effeminately).

In contemporary usage, these three aspects can mix and match in a dozen combinations, plus moves away from a strict gender binary to treat sexual identity and gender behavior as fluid, on a sliding scale.

In contrast, in the Middle Ages, there was a strict gender binary between “male” and “female”, and the aspects of “gender” and “orientation” were seen as inherently linked to and emanating from their biological sex, without variation. In their social conception, biological males inherently behaved masculinely, and biological females inherently behaved femininely. They had no concept of a “cis-gendered homosexual male”, a homosexual male who behaved very masculinely. This is not to say that they would be “offended” by such a man, but rather that they would find it conceptually difficult to understand. If a knight was highly skilled at masculine behavior such as warfare and martial prowess (i.e. Loras Tyrell), many would dismiss the suggestion that he privately enjoyed having sex with men – following the familiar stereotype that “he is too butch to be interested in other men”, etc. (Karras 6-7)

“…‘Homosexuality’ [as a concept] is not a thing that one can find in all cultures…to label anyone in the past who had sex with someone of the same sex as ‘a homosexual’ would be to impose a modern category. The same argument also applies to other categories of sexual behavior: heterosexuality, bisexuality, prostitution, or any other; the acts may be the same, but each society will determine what the meaning of those acts is and whether they create identities.” (Karras 7)

Women wanted to enter convents to be free from the control of a husband. For monks, celibacy made them super-male, the height of the male virtues of self-control. Celibate women did not achieve the same level of moral superiority: it was merely said that they overcame the weakness of the female sex, but not that they surpassed non-celibate men the way that celibate monks did.

Page 39 – Pre-pubescent Eunuchs cannot achieve erection Page 42 – women transcend the weakness of femininity, by showing masculine self-discipline


 * page 43 – Third Gender in other societies.

Page 43 – Celibacy with Gregorian Reform, page 45 – Byzantines not as much Page 50 – Rape and the Two Seeds theory

Page 60 – Marriage – transfer of property, ensuring that any children of this union will lawfully inherit from their parents. A way of linking families and acquiring lawful children. Many of the Merovingian kings of France in the 500s to 900s were engaged in polygamous marriages; many nobles also married close-degree cousins to consolidate family wealth. The Church saw it as a spiritual union and by the twelfth century, succeeded in redefining marriage. The Gregorian Reforms of the tenth century not only resulted in a celibate priesthood, but succeeded in making a politically stronger clergy not dominated by the nobility, who could in time pressure the aristocracy to accept their moral dictates.

Thus, in the eighth century, marriage was largely seen as a transfer of property, ensuring the production of legitimate children (of confirmed parentage) who would inherit that property, and thus linking two families politically. By the twelfth century, the new push for a celibate clergy had resulted in reforms which redefined marriage, infusing it with a spiritual-religious element.

Incest prohibitions were redefined at this time (not third cousin or closer).

Page 62 – Divorce did not exist for Christianity, only annulment. Divorce was easier for both men and women to achieve in medieval Jewish or Muslim communities. Polygamy was practiced in the Islamic world at the same time as in Merovingian France but it was already in decline and becoming fairly rare (only the very rich could afford it).

“Marriage in the Middle Ages was not an affirmation and official recognition of love between two people as much as it was the establishment of a legal unit which legitimized children and facilitated the transfer of property from one family to another and one generation to another.”(Karras 147)

Inheritance laws varied widely across Medieval Europe. In some regions and times women could not inherit at all, in others women inherited after brothers, in others the inheritance was gender-blind. Moreover, many major regions actually did not practice primogeniture at all, even between two sons: instead of the elder son getting all of the family lands in a winner-take-all system, the land would be divided evenly between two sons. Female landholding affected how many women would therefore wield political power, and many actually did.

Page 73 – Contraceptives/Abortion

Page 74 – both the rich and poor wanted many children, and thus probably didn’t practice contraception. Only prostitutes regularly practiced contraception, so any history of “reproductive rights and practices” must examine court records about prostitutes.

Page 79 – it was *universally* believed in all medieval writing that the source of female pleasure in the sex act was directly caused by the ejaculation of semen into her body. They actually thought the direct contact of semen into a woman’s vagina after a minute or two physically caused a woman to have orgasms – was the only thing that could cause a female orgasm. They thought women craved solely penetration and ejaculation.

Page 81 – medieval people knew what sex was – they all shared one bedroom!

Page 70 – girl education --Sew, dance, sing, write poetry, how to dress (fashion), musical instruments (harp, bells), and also basic horseriding. They are also taught practical mathematics, because a female noblewomen is expected to be the head of managing the household, working closely with the castle’s steward.

Page 83 – rear entry or woman on top sex was believed to make it difficult to conceive.

Page 84 and 140 – Oral sex rarely even mentioned in the middle ages’ texts, even to be condemned

Page 86 – “First Night” did not exist!

Page 87 – a woman’s primary role was as preservers/producers of “family” so sexual transgression for them was worse; page 88 – laws don’t accurately reflect actual attitudes; the church *tried* to say adulterous men were just as bad, but not very successful.

Page 92 – Sometimes that just how they talked – Define “love”! Kill the monster!

Page 100 – Legitimization of bastards

Page 107-108 – female prostitutes were seen as an outlet, prostitutes were the only ones who knew anything about contraception

Page 109 – medieval writers had no idea about women’s same-sex activity; it doesn’t involve penetration with a penis, though using a penis-shaped object is unnatural. Only TWELVE women were ever convinced in court of same-sex behavior, compared to hundreds of men.

Page 113 – Rape – women’s “consent” irrelevant Page 114 – Women did not tend to choose their husbands, their parents did. Other than overt, physically violent cohersion, they didn’t have a concept of emotional/economic cohersion, threats, etc. Page 115 – Gregorious – Repentance

Page 121-123 – boys will be boys double standard, male privilege Page 124 – “plucking a rose” was a common sex euphemism. Page 125 – Bastardy wasn’t a problem yet for Norman kings in the 1100s. Bastards often weren’t *quite* as looked down upon…early on, at least…Henry I of England had 6 known concubines and over 20 illegitimate children. Page 127 - Slavery of other religionists was okay Page 128 – Men who had sex with men – didn’t prefer with men, but preferred the passive role, thus preferred being a woman; they saw sex role and gender behavior as linked. Page 126-128 – “Rape”, as they understood it, you didn’t really need a woman’s consent. They were passive.
 * Page 129 – There was no “homosexual identity”; not a preference for men, but a preference for playing the role of a woman.
 * Page 130 – attitude towards Eunuchs in Baghdad reflects this

Page 133 – Sodomy was used to “other” but Christian/Muslim attitudes about male homosexuals really weren’t that different. Page 134 – Non-procreative sex is “sodomy” including woman-on-top. Page 136 – “not natural” according to Thomas Aquinas = “not for the benefit of the species”. 3rd Lateran outlawed sodomy; unclear if enforced at the time, but later was enforced and carried the death penalty post-Plague. Raging debate whether medieval people conceived of “sodomites” as a type of person.

Page 135 – “Sodomy” is bad because it is non-procreative


 * Page 136-137 – a “Sodomite” wasn’t actually a species of person, ANYONE could be tempted by it. On the other hand, unlike Greek and Roman times, they were starting to get a vague sense that some people preferred it exclusively.  ***Page 146 – Marie de France’s remark about boys with boys.

They saw it as an act, but not an exclusive preference.

Page 141 – the age/dominance hierarchy; not as strict in Northern Europe. Male homosexual relationships often mirrored this (in the south, anyway). Generally, homosexual relationships mirrored the patterns of heterosexual relationships. Page 143 – Long-term sexual/romantic relationships? Few records to give evidence. Page 145 – deep passionate relationships were celebrated among men, a “band of brothers” (Robert cares about Ned, not Cersei)

Page 154 – beddings actually occurred, though they were less titillating and more matter-of-fact. The aristocracy married young, around 12-14. Page 155 – “To suggest that sexual identities, attitudes, and practices in the cultura that gave us our legal systems and religious traditions were different teaches us that the way things are, or the way we imagine them to be, Is not the “natural” way but historically contingent.” Page 156 – “Marriage” defined as “monogamous, indissoluble…a relationship in which sexual intercourse could give rise to children who could inherit property” was hammered out in a long, drawn out process over the course of the Middle Ages.

Page 158 – Sex wasn’t something two people do together but something one person does to another; “sexuality” was a matter of gender role rather than object choice.

A – 1 – Social construct, variable 2 – “Sexual identity” was based on reproductive/nonreproductive 3 – active/passive dichotomy played a major role in defining 4 – They saw biological sex/gender behavior/sexuality as linked

B – the Greagorian Reform 1 – Clerical Celibacy 2 – Marriage (divorce/incest defined; bastardy)

C – Marriage – “rearing of children”? Tangent – Inheritance Law. Sex is good for reproduction. All other sex is unnatural. Pleasure was not egalitarian, didn’t understand women. Rape – the two seeds theory, “First Night” never existed.

D – Both Rich and Poor wanted children. Prostitutes were the only ones practicing contraception.

Differences between the A Song of Ice and Fire novels and real-life Medieval Europe

1 – The Faith of the Seven has both male and female priests. Women can be Most Devout (Cardinals), and there has probably been a High Septa in the past. A – The Faith of the Seven, however, still has a celibate clergy overall.

Therefore, they probably *would not* have the phallo-centric, object-choice model of sexuality that Medieval Europe did. Septas (female priests) would treat the female experience of sex as much more of an equal, mutualistic, and shared experience. They wouldn’t strictly define sex as “penetration with a penis”; Septas would consider oral sex performed on a woman as “sex”.

Further extrapolating this, by chance or design by Martin, yeah, they probably make no distinction between giving and receiving anal sex.

On the other hand, they still have a celibate clergy overall, so they would still have the general dichotomy between procreative and non-procreative sex. Allegedly you’re only supposed to have sex within marriage for the specific creation of children. King Robert’s adultery is frowned upon, as is Loras and Renly’s homosexuality – but it’s a venal sin, not a major one. There are no actual “laws” against it.

In short, they probably don’t have the active/passive hierarchy that was seen in Medieval Europe. At the same time, it is imposing modern biases to assume that they burned homosexuals at the stake or something. It was frowned upon, perhaps even scandalous, but not quite as severe as some reviewers have assumed. The TV writers actually understand this point, they’re on record as telling Finn Jones that there’s no actual law against homosexual behavior in Westeros. It’s sort of like an actor being outed as gay in 1950’s Hollywood; no “laws” are being broken, you don’t pay a fine, but it is considered very scandalous and your career is over.

A third point: because Medieval Europe conceived of sex as an action, not an identity choice, they didn’t think that “homosexuals” existed as a category. They didn’t conceptualize that there was a specific category of men who exclusively preferred to only have sex with men. Such men did exist, but how would they conceptualize these urges they felt? They had no models to follow. Arguably, they thought of sex as an action because their all-male priesthood saw it as something one person did to another with a penis. With a male and female priesthood, the Faith of the Seven probably sees sex as mutualistic, so there is some sense that they see it less as an action and perhaps as object choice…but this is unclear.

2 – Westeros has more than one major religion in it, and they generally co-exist. Medieval Europe had Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They didn’t get along that much, but all were basically Abrahamic religions and their views on sexuality were not radically different. In contrast, the Old Gods of the Forest and the Drowned God are completely unrelated to the Faith of the Seven and have very different value sets.

What the heck is the view of the Old Gods towards sex? They believe in marriage and have ruled against bastardy or incest, but otherwise, it is frequently said that the Old Gods “don’t have many formal rules” compared to the Faith. It’s a religion of quiet contemplation in Godswoods. Of course, the Northmen and wildlings might culturally see sex as frivolous and indulgent when they should be focused on survival, but no, we’ve seen Northmen and wildlings boast about their sexual prowess. Even one of Greatjon Umber’s uncles is secretly a homosexual. So if the Old Gods don’t have that many rules, do they have rules against adultery and homosexuality? Or even a cultural stigma? The Northmen apparently do have a stigma against it because the Umber is not openly homosexual…but maybe that’s cultural diffusion from the Faith of the Seven from the south, just like maesters or speaking the Common Tongue.

The Drowned God religion is fairly misogynistic. It’s praise-worthy for men to take as many concubines, salt wives, as he can, though the children of salt wives are not considered bastards. They do also have rules against bastardy and incest, etc., and “marriage” is a rite of the Drowned God performed by a priest. For that matter, the Drowned God *does* have an all-male priesthood. It is considered very controversial that Balon raised Asha as a surrogate son, and many reject her leadership out of hand just for being a woman. Then again, there’s mention in the fifth novel that some of Victarion’s men raped a master they took prisoner from the Shield Islands. So it is quite possible that the Drowned God religion is actually closest to what happened in Medieval Europe: so long as you’re the one penetrating someone else specifically with a penis, it’s not a problem, and they don’t really conceive of women as really “enjoying” sex or performing the same action that they do, they don’t care. Asha, however, is sexually active and no one blames her for it, but this is possibly due to her overall tomboyish attitudes. We don’t know much about the Drowned God religion on this point.

Then of course we come to Dorne. The Rhoynar ancestors of the Dornish came from city-states along the Rhoyne River in the Free Cities. They converted to the Faith of the Seven when they migrated to Westeros, but they just ignored the rules they didn’t like, so 1 – they see men and women as equal, both in inheritance and sex, 2 – they keep formal mistresses called paramours, and 3 – they don’t consider it a big concern “if a man lies with a man, or a woman lies with a woman”. Thus a Dornish noblewoman can inherit rule in her own right, and while technically married to a man to produce children, also openly keep a female paramour in an a deep, loving relationship. The Dornish, however, do not see this as a matter of the object choice dichotomy, given that even women do it. They just have a very fluid and non-binary attitude towards sex.

Outside of Westeros, we know little and less. The Free Cities have many different religions so their cultural values about sex can vary considerably. Courtesans are held in high cultural esteem in Braavos, and throughout the Free Cities formal concubines are not uncommon. Norvos was founded by religious extremists who are a very conservative all-male priesthood and who believe that sex is strictly for the creation of children.

The religion of the Lord of Light *apparently* is a bit more sexually tolerant; in their dualist view, the Lord of Light made humankind male and female, and the Lord of Life is in a struggle of the power of life versus the power of death against the Great Other. Therefore, when male and female are joined together it is a life-affirming, powerful act. This might indicate that they don’t view non-procreative sex as positive, but it is unclear. Either way there are so many other religions worshipped in the Free Cities, even in a single city, that there are multiple homosexual characters from there.

The Valyrians were obsessed with “keeping the bloodline pure” and practiced heavy brother-sister incest whenever possible (though apparently, not parent-child). Polygamy was also fairly common. We know little about how the Valyrian Freehold functioned at its height. We can only see them through the window of how the early Targaryens functioned in Westeros: apparently marriage and bastardy were rules they had, and there were female dragonlords, but Aegon I became lord ahead of Visenya? Was this due to Westerosi influence? Uncertain. Several historical Targaryens were homosexual, but they always stood apart from the peoples they ruled. This may have influenced the incest laws of Westeros, given that first cousins marry often in the Seven Kingdoms.

The Summer Islands are very “sex positive” and view it as a holy, life-affirming act, even when non-procreative, that the gods gave it to humans to enjoy themselves, and apparently they don’t make a distinction against homosexual sex either. The sex values of other religions such as the Lord of Harmony on Naath are less clear, so Missandei’s views are not certain.

In Slaver’s Bay, worship often involves temple prostitutes.

Asshai actually can’t reproduce because living there makes you sterile, they “reproduce” by adopting slave children. Therefore, if Melisandre is any indication (she is much more explicit about this with Gendry in the TV series) they don’t have particular rules against any sex acts.

We don’t know much about the Dothraki. On the one hand, male warriors are dominant, and they can have more than one wife. On the other hand, the only “priesthood” they have are the crones of dead khals, the dosh khaleen…how would this affect their attitudes towards sex? For all we know, the Dothraki have a “two spirits” conception of sex, like certain nomadic Native American tribes (i.e. some Dothraki warriors might have sex with other men, but still behave masculinely, and no one would think that was unusual). Little has been said about this.

Yi Ti’s emperors have been said to have concubines but how common this is, it’s unknown, The Hyrkoonian city-states of the central mountains are organized like mole rats, like a hive. They’re ruled by female warriors, all but the handsomest and healthiest males are castrated at a young age and treated as worker-drones. The few they don’t become breeding stock for all the women warriors.

Qarth…or, the dress the launched a thousand fanarts!....yeah…

The Jogos Nhai have very interesting attitudes towards sex and gender. They see social roles as very linked to gender behavior, but that these are independent of biological sex. Warriors are a masculine role, but the priesthood, healers, judges, and other domestic affairs (i.e. merchants?) are female roles. Thus if you’re born female but want to be a warrior you have to live as a man, and if you’re a man who wants to be a merchant you have to live as a woman. This is due to their religion of the Moonsingers. Notably, the Moonsingers are a major religion in Braavos, due to some Jogos Nhai slaves taking the lead among the diverse group of escaped slaves that fled there. So logically, it might not be unusual to run into an Iron Bank member who is actually a man living as a woman, because she follows the Moonsinger religion.