I look forward to reading this when it's finished. However, your explanation of the term "pillow-biter" is incorrect. The recieving partner bites down on the pillow due to the pain/discomfort of being penetrated.--The White Winged Fury 18:15, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
...might not pain and pleasure be a mix?
- Of course, but if we're speaking strictly in terms on the origins of the word, then it would be incorrect. Although it's not a big a deal in truth, just thought I'd point it out. I'm enjoying this so far.--The White Winged Fury 12:12, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah...one of the reasons their use of the term was so annoying is...I've actually never heard the term at all. I mean not only is it modern, it's downright obscure, making it more silly than anything. I had to look up the definition online, and it's so obscure I'm not even getting clear definitions. So yes, I'm going to just leave it as "it's a modern term" and interlink it to the wiktionary entry. Let them deal with defining it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:19, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Rearrange order and synthetize
I think the order of the article should be as such:
- In the show
- In the books
- Short for real life
...regarding some of the criticisms about this...yeah I got really carried away with the real life section. I need to shorten it.
Right now "real life" and "in the books" are done, still working on the TV series part, but I'm going to switch to somehow shortening the "in real life" parts....let me play around with this...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:55, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
I have taken these criticisms to heart: I got carried away and upon finishing, realized I had gotten drastically carried away with the "In Real Life" section. (This is why it is better to wait until I say I'm finished...) but that's in the past.
Anyway I gutted it down to the bare-bones major points: the four major points about patterns of sexuality in Medieval Europe, their concept of gender binary, and status of homosexuality. I also trimmed these extensively.
A few other things I cut down to a sentence or paragraph and just shoved in as a note in the "in the books" section.
The whole thing is finished.
I drastically rewrote it since last time.
I really, really think it needs to be in the order "real life, books, TV series", because each section builds on the last. The TV series section says only "this is how it is different from the novels", while the "books" section repeatedly refers to terms and concepts from the "in real life" section (though I shortened the "in real life" section as much as I could, or moved around a point here or there to the "in the books" section just as a stray comment).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:49, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
Each section builds on the last in such a way because you wrote it that way. The whole wiki has an established order: the TV show, then the books (and it is that way because this is a GoT wiki; the GoT info comes first, and then the comparison to the books; that's the way it makes sense.) The real-life section may be a loose one, but the other two are quite clear. You've had quite a while to reorganize it, since Gonzalo pointed out the correct order, yet I haven't seen you try and reorganize it. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:51, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
My argument is that it needed to be reorganized when the original "in real life" section was way too long -- so I shortened it drastically, and now I think it makes more sense to put the shorter section first.
My reaction to his request to reorganize it was to try to drastically shorten the "in real life" section and move stuff to other sections -- though I'm not sure if that is sufficient, I did try to address it.
I mean throughout the rest I refer to "procreative/non-procreative dichotomy", etc. OR, at the very least, that the "in the books" section needs to follow "in real life"...plausibly the TV section could go first...I think. I could go either way....yeah, if Gonzalo says the "In the TV series" section needs to go first I won't oppose that.
But the "In real life" part is kind of setup for the "in the books" part, and vital setup information would be lost otherwise.
That makes sense. As I said, the "real life" section doesn't have a precedent. Yet the order between show and books has a long precedent of... the whole wiki. It's really weird and out of place to have the books before the show in this single article.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:37, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
Sodomy in Medieval society
The main page incorrectly states there were no secular laws against sodomy in medieval Europe, plus that it was not punished. Neither of these things is true, as sodomy has been an offense dating back to late Roman law. Sodomy was punishable by death in many cases. I don't know how frequently it occurred, but to say neither was the case isn't true.Mcc1789 (talk) 08:02, March 31, 2016 (UTC)
- ...I needed to be more clear on this:
- It's a difficult balancing act between "readers who have no knowledge of gender studies or history other than what they've absorbed through TV" and "professional academics who actually know what the heck I'm talking about". I've had problems even trying to explain to people that the heterosexual/homosexual divide is a social construct and demonstrably not present in every human society.
- So the point is, the general attitude writing this thing was that the target audience is more likely people with no background, as opposed to those who know the complexities. And I was trying to deconstruct the popular stereotype that homosexuals were heavily persecuted in the Middle Ages. Entire BOOKS have been written analyzing exactly what the status of homosexuals was like in Medieval Europe, and in many ways the question is ongoing. This is just my attempt at an introductory primer.
- Moreover, I originally wrote a much longer version, until ArticXiongMao and others complained that it needed to be streamlined to keep the "in real life" section to a minimum.
- Original version acknowledged the complexities - this is the short, short version.
- ....In answer to your question, I tried to point this out at the beginning: "Medieval Europe" refers to a medieval period lasting a thousand years, and from England to Spain to Greece. This was not one monolithic culture zone but had a large amount of variation in both time and place.
- The Middle Ages generally get divided into 3 sections: "Early Middle Ages" (500-1000), "High Middle Ages" (1000-1348) and "Late Middle Ages" (1348-1500). Sodomy only really started getting routinely punished in the Late Middle Ages, depending on the region.
- Death was not a punishment in a majority of cases....we think. Far more common from what we can tell from records in Florence and Venice was to pay a fine (we can't tell if Florence had a big homosexual scene, as it were, or if they just had good written records - thus we have evidence - while the same thing happened in other cities but the police/church didn't keep surviving records about it).
- Another major point: just because there was a law on the books doesn't indicate how commonly it was enforced. The churches said one thing, who knows if they were followed. Research tries to focus on records of actual punishments, not just rhetoric.
- So without exaggeration, it is possible to write an article JUST AS LONG as this whole thing, debating "what was the status of homosexuals in the Middle Ages? Was sodomy always punished by death? In what regions and at what times?" etc. debating this back and forth. Again, entire books written on the subject....
- ....This article was just meant to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
- The other point was that the TV show really "got" it. Season 1, we don't see Loras and Renly particularly worried that they're going to be put to death by religious leaders, without trial, just for being homosexuals. But at the same time it's seen as shameful, so they keep it hidden. It's complicated. But the show did it pretty much the way it's presented in the books, and the way we can sort of tell it was like in many regions in many times in the Middle Ages (again: Richard the Lionheart had sex with men, but no one ever put him to death for it, he just didn't talk about it much in public.)
"A number of secular jurisdictions - Castile, Portugal, several Italian towns and French counties - came over the course of the thirteenth century [1200s] to prescribe the death penalty for male same-sex relations, although we do not have court records to indicate from this early a date whether this punishment was ever carried out (we know that it was in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries)...Both Florence and Venice changed their administrative and judicial structures for dealing with sodomy over the course of the fifteenth century, and began to treat the offense more seriously In both cases this seems to have been due not to changes in the practice of sodomy but rather to changes in the moral climate...because the records of Florence's 'Office of the Night' [for anonymous accusations of sodomy] survive, we are able to know a great deal about patterns of accusation - but this is not necessarily the same thing as knowing about the patterns of the practice of sodomy itself..." -- Karras, pages 131-136.
Florence did make a show of burning a few sodomites at the stake in the 1400s...and even beheaded one man in 1481 for "frequent sodomy with his wife" (Karras, 131)
"Prosecutions were less frequent in the north than in Italy, but punishments also tended to be more serious...England, strangely enough, never experienced any "homosexual panics" the way certain Italian city-states did" (Karras, 131)
So as said, we only really have records of death penalties being carried out for sodomy during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (1300s and 1400s = Late Middle Ages, post-Black Death). And even then, it was in periodic outbursts of moral panic that then died out again. We think.
Point is this is a very complex question, and what I'm really trying to fight here is the stereotype that "throughout the Middle Ages you could get stoned to death without trial just for being a homosexual" which simply isn't true. In arguing against that it might make it sound like I'm claiming everything was great for homosexuals in the entire period and that they were quite open about their activities, which they were not. It was considered a sin on par with adultery.
Moreover, as a medievalist I focus on the High Middle Ages more (1000 to 1350ish) and I really see stuff in the 1400s as the kind of moral hysteria that was leading up to the Reformation in the early 1500s; plus the Renaissance going on in the 1400s (first in the south, then spreading north), all of this wasn't really "medieval" so much as leading into the post-medieval era.
Not to sound rude as I'm not here to debate the veracity of this article, nor do I claim to be that knowledgable of the wiki's rules and guidelines, but I have to question this article's place here. It seems like an essay that acts as more of a commentary than what encyclopedias are for which is a reference for information. This question also extends to this article. Now, I'm not here to say that the writing is particularly bad, nor that it's badly sourced (it very much is well-sourced), but it just feels like it adds little to the wiki while sounding like it belongs on a blog. Just my two cents. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 23:01, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Some wikis are devoted to fan-fiction. Wikis have a very broad range, and yes, many allow analysis pages like this provided that they are properly sourced.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:03, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
I know, and you're right about the broad subjects that multiple wikis fall under, but explaining the concepts of gender and sexuality on an information place meant for Game of Thrones seems... irrelevant? Like I said, not trying to sound rude—and yes, this is relevant as a commentary for Game of Thrones—but I'm just curious why we need this here apart from the fact all wikis are different. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 23:09, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Multiple people started independently making articles on "Homosexuality", etc., casually understood stuff, but it's actually a lot more complicated than that within the storyverse.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:12, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
But I'm asking why this is needed to be expanded upon in its own article? I'm aware the storyverse of Game of Thrones has its own cultural norms and details, but I feel like that would better fit separately throughout the articles it corresponds to. For example, you refer to the Faith multiple times in this, but isn't it easier for people to discover it there, on its own article, than seek out an entire essay on gender and sexuality here? AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 23:16, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
No. This article takes about aspects of the Faith of the Seven that are relevant to gender and sexuality. The overall "Faith of the Seven" is an entire belief system, with its own larger page.
Meaning what exactly? We have a section on "Faith of the Seven" that says "it considers homosexuality a sin", but that doesn't exactly describe Loras and Renly's behavior, as they don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:19, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with its own subheading in the Faith article relating to gender and sexuality? This essay doesn't seem very accessible nor user-friendly in that they have to comb throughout the entire thing or read it to find the information they're looking for. It's a good essay on gender and sexuality in Game of Thrones, but it's not that notable enough or explored deeper into the series to warrant its own article in my opinion. Yes, it's covered over as a cultural aspect inside the storyverse, but spreading out through its corresponding articles seems fine enough to me. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 23:24, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Well, no. The entire point is to have one article on a single cultural topic: why have an article on Armament when we can just have "military" subsections for each of the noble House articles?
Nor is "gender and sexuality" a topic limited to "religion". It's a social behavior. I mean what about atheists in the show? The entire point in making it one article is to have it devoted to this one topic, not scattered across a dozen other religion pages - that would result in people having to "comb over and explore" to find every aspect of the topic.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:45, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not a fan of how it is written and formatted as an article on the wiki, not as an essay—it's fine as an essay on its own. I suppose that, in my opinion, it would be better if it went less on about our own real life and more strictly to the point about the concepts portrayed as they are in the show. I don't think it's fitting to have entire definitions of cultural concepts in the Medieval Ages as well as modern gender studies. Wikipedia is there for that, and too much context isn't needed in one article if written correctly if that's what worries you. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 23:52, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
You joined this wiki today, made no previous edits, and immediately start declaring what articles should or should not exist on it? ....ah, I don't mean to yell. Still, it would have been too difficult to explain one without the other.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:05, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
There were no declarations made. As stated—"in my opinion"—they were opinions. No offense, but I'd rather you focus on my argument rather than the amount of edits I've made. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 00:07, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
Well okay okay. First, I genuinely think that an article like this was merited. Second, if you want a second opinion, when I showed George R.R. Martin himself a link to this article via his blog comments, he was quite impressed and said that it would merit an essay-length response about gender in his works -but he can't write it right now because he's overburdened as it is writing the next novels and doesn't want to get distracted by other projects. So...I took that as a vote of encouragement.
Otherwise, if there are any parts you particularly disagree with, I'd welcome any criticism. I locked the page to prevent clowns on the internet from filling the page with homophobic slurs.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:27, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I was just dropping my two cents here. I'm a fan of both the books and the show, and I would make more edits here, but my last time on Wikia a few years ago (different account) became bogged down with too much bureaucracy in the way of actual contributing. Not saying that's happening here either, but it's just left a bad taste in my mouth. Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to talk with me about this. I think it's cool that the author himself commented on the article. Enjoy the new episode when it comes out. Cheers. AllHailTheFirstOrder (talk) 00:34, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
Category for LGBT?
(Reposted from Admin talk page):
I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this and if it is not, please direct me to where I'm supposed to go. But should there be a category for LGBT?
- I personally don't think it is needed and would only alienate the LGBT community. It's not pertinent information for a character. QueenBuffy 02:49, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
...at most, Maybe "Characters Who Have Had Same-Sex Relationships" or something. But not really. We...we would literally be imposing modern "categories" onto a medieval society which they don't actually use.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:57, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Like I said, doesn't seem all that pertinent. QueenBuffy 03:05, July 16, 2016 (UTC)