FANDOM


 
(44 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
"Sexuality is a social construct?" WTF? No, sexuality is a biological construct. If sexuality was a social construct then non-social animals (e.g. angler fish) wouldn't reproduce. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 18:50, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
+
==R'hllor==
  +
Don't forget that the religion of R'hllor also practices sacred prostitution. It is mentioned in the novels and in the Histories & Lore by Thoros.--[[User:Gonzalo84|Gonzalo84]] ([[User talk:Gonzalo84|talk]]) 15:58, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
   
1 - I'm not done yet.
+
I haven't gotten that far yet, but yes, I did not forget.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 17:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
   
2 - Yes, sexuality is a social construct, not a universal and unchanging set of standards. "Marriage" didn't even begin to ''resemble'' its mid-20th century forms until about 800 years ago.
+
== Pillow-biter ==
   
I need to explain the sex/gender/orientation divide..--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 20:21, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
+
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.--[[User:The White Winged Fury|The White Winged Fury]] 18:15, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
#Yes, but literally the first sentence in this article is incorrect.[[File:Sexualitydef.png|thumb|400px]]
 
#No, sexuality is not a social construct. How do you think biology and evolution work? If it was a "social construct" life and organisms would not exist as we understand them. It's absolutely ludicrous and baseless to say that sexuality is a social construct. Saying that sexuality is a social construct would also mean that one is not born with their sexuality, and that if you found a creature that had never met another of its kind it would have to be asexual. Sexuality isn't a universal or unchanging set of standards, you're right, and that's because sexuality doesn't have anything at all to do with standards of anything of anysort, it's a PHENOMENON observed in organisms in NATURE, thus making it a NATURAL OCCURENCE, NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Also, marriage doesn't even have anything to do with this; marriage and sexuality are completely different subjects. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 03:19, July 11, 2015 (UTC)
 
   
It makes sense when you think about Dorne. Because they are much more tolerant of non-heterosexual relationships, you see a much higher prevalence of said relationships. That the Dornish are somehow genetically predisposed to non-heterosexual couplings compared to the rest of Westeros makes little sense. [[User:Lksdjf|Lksdjf]] ([[User talk:Lksdjf|talk]]) 23:24, July 10, 2015 (UTC) 
+
...might not pain and pleasure be a mix?
   
"''I recommend you read what I asid on the talk page of the Gender and Sexuality page, and then amend the mistakes in your article. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 02:03, July 12, 2015 (UTC)''"
+
I'm sorry I keep having to do this in spurts, I'm in the middle of an annoying summer semester course that ends next week.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 20:23, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
   
Please don't post this ''to my personal Talk page'' instead of discussing it here.
+
: 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.--[[User:The White Winged Fury|The White Winged Fury]] 12:12, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
   
"Mistakes"?--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 03:13, July 12, 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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 19:19, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
   
'''Response'''
+
==Rearrange order and synthetize==
   
Bother to read through the entire article carefully.
+
I think the order of the article should be as such:
   
You are apparently convinced that I claimed the ''physical act'' of sex is a social construct.
+
* In the show
  +
* In the books
  +
* Short for real life
   
"Sex" the physical action and "Sexuality" are two separate thing.
+
--[[User:Gonzalo84|Gonzalo84]] ([[User talk:Gonzalo84|talk]]) 17:00, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
   
THE DEFINITION ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE is that "Sexuality" is the ''entire'' mental framework and set of concepts and meanings applied to gendered and sexual behavior. Which is why this page is titled ''Gender and Sexuality'', and not just Sexuality.
+
I'll play around with it then.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 17:06, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
   
''As I said'', "Sexuality" is broken down into three broad factors: Physical Sex (Male, Female), Gender (masculine or effeminate behavior, and what that means exactly), and Orientation (are you attracted to male bodies or to female bodies).
 
   
'''Animals don't have the capacity for abstract thought.'''
+
...regarding some of the criticisms about this...yeah I got really carried away with the real life section. I need to shorten it.
   
There is no "Sexuality" within "Nature", because Sexuality is a ''mental framework and set of values''. Something like that men wear pants and women wear skirts...that's a ''concept''. That doesn't exist "in Nature". And concepts are culturally subjective (a Scotsman would find wearing a skirt - kilt - to be masculine).
+
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...--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 01:55, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
   
''"Saying that sexuality is a social construct would also mean that one is not born with their sexuality, and that if you found a creature that had never met another of its kind it would have to be asexual."''
+
Yikes, I can't believe I let this get so carried away; you guys were right, I need to shorten a lot from "in real life"...--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 07:01, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
   
A creature that never met another of its kind would have certain basic biological urges, but how it expressed and conceptualized them would be very different. A human raised from birth by the Na'vi from Avatar would grow up being sexually attracted to Na'vi - because it's kind of all they know.
+
MAJOR REWRITE
   
But more importantly: '''people are not born with their "Sexuality" - you don't understand the specific meaning of "Sexuality" being used in this context: a combination of Biological Sex, Gender Behavior, and Orientation.'''
+
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.
   
Someone may be born male, and their "Orientation" to prefer having sex with men may originate from birth (due to biological factors), but the ''Gender'' aspect of how these are expressed? Cultural context. You're not born knowing that "Men wear pants and women wear skirts".
+
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.
   
You are referring to "Orientation", which is ''one aspect'' of "Sexuality" overall.
+
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.
   
I'm not finished writing the article.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 03:25, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
Still writing up the In the TV series section, but please review.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 15:18, August 29, 2015 (UTC)
   
Moreover, you insultingly posted an image of the dictionary definition of "Sexuality" as: "capacity for sexual feelings; a person's sexual orientation; sexual activity"
+
==Finished==
   
''That is not the definition I provided, the definition used by MORE CURRENT scholarly articles on gender and sexuality.''
+
The whole thing is finished.
   
For starters, "a person's sexual orientation" and "sexual activity" are, broadly speaking, sort of the same thing (who interacts with who, physically). Animals don't have a "capacity for sexual feelings"...they have ''instincts'' but "conscious thought and conscious feelings" are exclusive to humans.
+
I drastically rewrote it since last time.
   
Yeah...you're using "Sexuality" to refer specifically to "Orientation"...and at the start of this article I very specifically provided the textbook definition of "Sexuality" as incorporating BOTH Orientation AND Gender Behavior.
+
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).--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 17:49, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
   
Yet even "orientation" is subjective, because not every society used the same categorization scheme. Or even the same basis for categorization (basically, the real-life Middle Ages people defined their Orientation based on the role they played in the sex act, Active or Passive, instead of Object Choice - whether they preferred having sex with male or female bodies).
+
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. —[[User:ArticXiongmao|ArticXiongmao]] ([[User talk:ArticXiongmao|talk]]) 20:51, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
   
--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 03:29, July 12, 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.
   
...you do realize that ''in "Nature"'', animals often have what we would call homosexual sex? Male-male pair bonded penguins who have sex, etc?--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 03:31, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
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.
   
Your argument is totally wrong. Sexuality is the sexual aspect of an animal. Sexuality can be almost anything; if a dog humps a stuffed animal then jizzes it's an example of sexuality, not social constructs. You're literally just making up your own definition of what sexuality is. You can't just put up a article full of misinformation because you personally think it's defitinion is something else with no sources aside from one guy who died over thirdy years ago. Almost every definition of sexuality I could find disagrees with you ([http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexuality 1] ,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality 2] ,[http://au.reachout.com/what-is-sexuality 3], #2 is even in your article ).  Let me break this down for you further:
+
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.
   
Penguins have higher rates of pedophilia, necrophilia, and homosexuality than other birds; this is an aspect of penguin sexuality. These penguins don't need to invent social constructs to commit these sexual acts, they are sexual by defintion.
+
But the "In real life" part is kind of setup for the "in the books" part, and vital setup information would be lost otherwise.
   
Another example: when many spiders mate the male is eaten by the female - this is, the male being eaten an aspect of sexuality in spiders. It's not a social construct, it's part of their reproduction.
+
I mean the heraldry article etc. sets stuff up with in real life sections first too. --[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 22:30, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
   
Another example: ducks mate almost exclusively through rape that often leave females injured or even dead, often doing this in gangs. This is not because ducks have a rape culture, it's an evolutionary tactic, and this habitual rape in ducks is part of their sexuality.
+
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.—[[User:ArticXiongmao|ArticXiongmao]] ([[User talk:ArticXiongmao|talk]]) 22:37, September 15, 2015 (UTC) 
   
Just because an animal can't define something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature. Animals feeling pain, much like sexuality, is naturally occuring, and thus natural, and not a "social construct." And you never proved a damn thing, you simply asserted your opinion as truth with no sources except for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault this guy] who has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Critiques_and_engagements heavily crisized for his beliefs] , with some saying his beliefs in regard social constructs are "affronts to the concept of truth."
+
==Sodomy in Medieval society==
   
Also, what's the problem with leaving a single message on your talk page? Perhaps it was inappropriate of me to do that, but your explosion was a dispraportionate response to a single message. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 03:48, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
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.[[User:Mcc1789|Mcc1789]] ([[User talk:Mcc1789|talk]]) 08:02, March 31, 2016 (UTC)
I apologize if I seemed out of line by posting here, it's simply that I'm a bit zealous when it comes to tackling pseudo-science pedaled as factcoupled with the fact that in other wikis I have worked on leaving messages on talk pages of an admin was hardly considered a transgression. I won't do it again, I'm sorry. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 04:03, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
 
   
Well you don't need to proliferate comments by trying to flag me down on my Talk page for a conversation I was already in. Please don't start tangents like that.
+
:...I needed to be more clear on this:
   
...as the article provides the textbook definition, "Sexuality" ''in this context'' means what I guess you might call "Sexual Identity".
+
: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.
   
An animal cannot have a "Sexual Identity" because it is not capable of truly conscious thought.
+
: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.
   
...I just namedropped Foucault. My source is actually the textbook on "Sexuality in the Middle Ages" that I read in my graduate school level History course. I haven't added all of the citations in yet. In real life I hold a Master's Degree in Medieval History and yes I took a course on Medieval Women and Sexuality. I didn't ''write my thesis'' on it and there are many more knowledgeable on the subject than me. But I've read a few of the major textbooks and these are broadly accepted points through academia.
+
:'''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.'''
   
Turning back to the animal analogy...
+
:Original version acknowledged the complexities - this is the short, short version.
   
"a dog humping a stuffed toy" ''is not'' an example of "Sexuality" as in "Sexual Identity". That's just instinct or physical sensation. Dogs don't have the capacity for abstract thought to put their actions into some kind of social context.
+
:....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.'''
   
A big analogy: '''animals have no concept of incest'''. "Incest" isn't a concept animals understand. When you breed dogs you have to separate the male and female pups after a certain point otherwise they'll start breeding with each other and inadvertently make inbred puppies. Animals have no conception of this.
+
: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.
   
"Sexual Identity"/Sexuality encompases Orientation and Gender behavior. A praying mantis female devouring a male after mating is not an example of either Gender ''or'' Orientation.
+
: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).
   
''"Just because an animal can't define something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature."''
+
:'''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.
   
Very specifically, no: ''concepts'' do not exist "in nature". Nature contains no concepts, as Nature is not capable of thought. Nature doesn't think of definitions.
+
: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....
   
While things such as "incest" or "male-male sex" occur "in Nature".....these are terms ''humans'' apply to Nature. They do not objectively exist. They're conceptual definitions we apply to them.
+
:....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.)
   
...I'm confused now exactly what you mean: if "Sexuality"/"Sexual Identity" is innate "in Nature" and not a social construct......and I said that "Sexuality" encompasses "Gender Behavior".....then is it innately in the Nature of female humans to wear skirts and not pants? Or is this a social construct?--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 04:10, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
:Your thoughts on this?--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 23:59, April 3, 2016 (UTC)
   
I'll number this so it's a bit easier to keep track: 
 
   
1. Alright, won't tangent again.
+
"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.
   
2. There is a massive difference between sexuality and sexual identity, just like there's a massive difference between race and racial identity.You're strawmanning me extremely hard by saying that I'm implying animal have a sexual identity. Sexuality is an instinct, just like getting food or water. Getting food or water is not a social construct.
+
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)
   
3. Yes, you name dropped someone who is your single source and has himself been criticizing for using sources that are bias to his points, amongst many other criticisms. You say these concepts are broadly accepted in academia, but not in almost any dictionary, and you provide no source for this aside from what college classes tyou may have taken
+
"'''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)
   
4. Dogs don't need a concept of sexuality to experience it, just like they don't need a concept of gravity to stay on the planet, and don't need a concept of suffering to suffer. These things all exist in nature without humans having to label them as existing. This whole argument you're presenting right here is a fallacy.
+
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.
   
5. Yes, they have no concept of incest, which supports my point that it's not a social construct. The fact that they commit incest shows that they experience sexuality.
+
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.
   
6. That's because sexuality's definition doesn't include gender or orientation in literally every other definition I've seen, several of which I cited.
+
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.
   
7. You're right that "concepts" don't exist in nature, but our the phenomenon we have concepts about do. Sexuality isn't just our understanding of reproduction, it's an instinct and thus a phenomenon, and sexuality is simply the word we've put on it, same with hunger, these are all phenomenon, and they don't require human labels or animal comprehension to exist. 
+
Yes, academics keep debating this but I could only say so much with limited space.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 00:18, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
   
8. Just because they exist in words doesn't mean that they don't objectively exist. A male of a species having sex with a male of another species is homosexuality whether or not there is a scientist watching to label it as such. You're argument here is really analagous to "if a tree falls in a wood an no one hears." it then it doesn't make a sound. Sorry, but just because no nearby animals have the ability to label the phenomenon as sound doesn't mean the phenomenon that we call sound didn't happen. Male-male sex and incest do objectively exist, because we've obviously seen them both in humans (which are part of nature) and other animals, so obviously they objectively exist.
+
==Question==
  +
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 [[Differences in the status of women between books and TV series|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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 23:01, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
9. Women don't have an instict to wear skirts, but they do have an instict in regards to reproduction, that instict is called sexuality. Sexual identity is not an instict. I'll completely concede that "sexual identity" is a social construct, but that is a completely seperate issue from sexuality itself. [[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 04:30, July 12, 2015 (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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 23:09, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
First, I must emphasize that '''I put a label "Work in Progress" at the top of this article in nice big bolded letters, but you chose to react to an unfinished writeup anyway.''' I do have citations but I haven't added them yet.
+
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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 23:12, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
I'm adding page references to my graduate school medieval history class's textbook on Medieval Sexuality.
+
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? [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 23:16, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
You....are citing "the dictionary".
+
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.
   
Did you know that until as late as 2009, Webster's dictionary strictly defined "Marriage" as a union "between a man and a woman"? http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91995/ No, "the dictionary" is not an authoritative source on all contexts.
+
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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 23:19, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
''Within the context of "Gender Studies"'', as a scholarly academic field, "Sexuality" doesn't mean "sex urges", instinctive feelings like pain and hunger. It's a framework of concepts, sort of like "Sexual Identity".
+
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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 23:24, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
...you do realize that in certain academic fields certain terms can mean different things?
+
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?
   
This is the official term.
+
''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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 23:45, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
''5. Yes, they have no concept of incest, which supports my point that it's not a social construct. The fact that they commit incest shows that they experience sexuality.''"
+
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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 23:52, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
   
...again, you think sexuality means "physical sex urges", yet the official Gender Studies term "Sexuality" is closer to "Sexual Identity", or "socio-cultural value set regarding sexuality".
+
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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 00:05, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
   
Animals have no concept of incest (you agree), and you say that because animals experience (physical sex urges) with siblings, this phenomenon is not merely a social construct.
+
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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 00:07, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
   
All you did was reiterate that you think the specific word "sexuality" doesn't mean that.
+
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.
   
...I'm not sure if this is just you being upset about how the term is used.
+
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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 00:27, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
   
The "phenomenon" of animals having sex with siblings "in Nature" physically happens. Incest as a concept does not.
+
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. [[User:AllHailTheFirstOrder|AllHailTheFirstOrder]] ([[User talk:AllHailTheFirstOrder|talk]]) 00:34, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
   
Okay maybe the example confused you: "Incest the action" defined as "siblings having sex" does physically happen. "Incest, the moral concept/crime" is an abstraction, and a social construct.
+
== Category for LGBT? ==
   
Let's move away from the incest example though, the terminology may get confused....
+
''(Reposted from Admin talk page):''
   
"'' A male of a species having sex with a male of another species is homosexuality whether or not there is a scientist watching to label it as such.''
+
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?
   
"Homosexuality" is a concept. Male-male sex is not a concept but a physical action.
+
([[User:TheBigMassiveArkhamFan|TheBigMassiveArkhamFan]] ([[User talk:TheBigMassiveArkhamFan|talk]]) 17:21, July 15, 2016 (UTC)) TheBigMassiveArkhamFan
   
Alright, is male-male sex always homosexuality, and never anything else?--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 05:40, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
...they don't necessarily use such categories in-universe. See "Gender and Sexuality". --[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 20:44, July 15, 2016 (UTC)
   
1. Simply saying that I used a dictionary definition doesn't disprove my argument (even though I had three links, one of which had a far more in-depth analysis of sexuality), nor does it legitimise the single dubious source you have cited. I've yet to see you prove anything to prove your definition. Also, simply because you claim to have studied Medievel Sexuality and Gender Studies doesn't make you any more correct. I know plenty of people who know nothing of the things they try to study and know nothing of dogmas that they follow. I apologize if you feel it's out of place for me to correct you before the article is finished, but I think things should always be corrected at the beginning, citations should always accompany the edits the pertrain to in swift succession if not together, and I wouldn't like it if I somehow managed to convince you and then you had to re-write the article.
+
:Considering the setting I'm not quite sure.--[[User:Gonzalo84|Gonzalo84]] ([[User talk:Gonzalo84|talk]]) 02:33, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
2. Sexual identity and sexuality are different concepts. Let's say I'm a bisexual (because I am) and one day I'm particularly in the mood for boys, well just because the sexuality that one day may be more homosexual than usual doesn't mean that my identity changes too. People are born with their sexuality, not with their sexual identities; these are different issues.
+
::I personally don't think it is needed and would only alienate the LGBT community. It's not pertinent information for a character. {{Template:Buffymybasset/sig}} 02:49, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
3. Though animals may not comprehend that they are comitting incest or any factors about it doesn't mean that they're not comitting it. Incest occurs in nature, though obviously animals don't think much of it, that doesn't therefor make it a social construct.
+
...''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.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 02:57, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
4. Yes, when two organisms of the same gender have intercourse it is homosexual. Homo means the "same" and sexual obviously means sexual. If a a member of the same gender has intercourse with another of the same gender it is always homosexuality (a form of sexuality), though neither organisms may have a concept of homosexuality in contrast to normal sexuality nor have a concept of identity.
+
Agreed. Like I said, doesn't seem all that pertinent. {{Template:Buffymybasset/sig}} 03:05, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
5. So would you argue that animals don't have a sense of sexuality? With a definition of sexuality including so many things such as yours, how would categorizing sexuality work? Even by your own defitinion, wouldn't feeling this sexuality be innate in us as well as animals who can't comprehend these feelings, and therefor an instinct and thus the feeling of sexuality a natural phenomenon? Even if sexuality is this broader concept, how does this somehow blend with it being a social construct and still not being just a concept of a phenomenon? Us just being able to properly comprehend and label ourselves and roles doesn't make it a social construct, with that criteria it could still be just a naturally occuring phenomenon, it would just be one that we build social constructs around.
+
:There aren't that many articles that would make use of it. - {{Xanderen/signature}} 16:46, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
   
[[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 06:26, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
+
==AWOIAF==
+
*https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Gender_and_sexuality
"I know plenty of people who know nothing of the things they try to study and know nothing of dogmas that they follow."
+
[[User:Syalantillesfel|Syalantillesfel]] ([[User talk:Syalantillesfel|talk]]) 19:59, October 24, 2018 (UTC)
 
...I didn't "read a book on gender studies", I took a graduate-level course on medieval women and sexuality taught by my professor who was the then-president of the ''Medieval Academy of America''.
 
 
..."Bisexual" and "Homosexual" are separate terms. No, if you're bisexual and happen to be attracted to a man one day, you don't suddenly feel "more homosexual". "Homosexual" means "exclusively attracted to one sex". You are misapplying the narrow technical definitions of these terms.
 
 
"Yes, when two organisms of the same gender have intercourse it is homosexual. Homo means the "same" and sexual obviously means sexual. "
 
 
"Homosexuality" as a Sexual Identity means "exclusively having sex with the same biological gender". While there are [[Wikipedia:Men who have sex with men|"men who have sex with men"]], it isn't always "homosexual".
 
 
 
''" I apologize if you feel it's out of place for me to correct you before the article is finished, but I think things should always be corrected at the beginning, "''
 
 
I do not "feel", I state: it was rude and incorrect of you to start interjecting when I even put up a warning at the top of the article saying "Work in Progress". No, I can't always add citations when I'm composing and moving words around. And if you're that concerned my raw notes with page numbers are at the bottom --- though I must stress, the entire reason for the "Work in Progress" sign is that ''you were not supposed to read it yet''. --[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 13:52, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
 
 
1. Cool story, bro. Please explain how this backs up your statements on the nature of sexuality. I'm sure you know your way around a longbow or a map of the HRE, but I'm failing to see support for your argument for sexuality.
 
 
2.  Alright, I'll admit I kinda botched that point. But is someone is completely straight, and then they have lots of sex with the same gender, is all that sex now straight sex because on person invovled was straight?
 
 
3. Just because the mend don't identify as homosexual doesn't mean that the act wasn't homosexual. If I went and scrwed five guys down town those acts would be homosexual, although I wouldn't neccecarily be one.
 
 
4. I've never had ever seen someone get so butthurt about correcting an unfinished page. Most other wikis I've seen reading and posting on the talk page before it's done isn't considered a bad thing. There is no objective way on how and when to correct people, so yes, I'm sorry that you FEEL that I was acting inappropriate. I don't even come on this wiki often, was I suppose to wait a week then remember to come back to correct this? I think this is distastfully eccentric on your part.
 
 
5. Even if I were to concede the entirety of the definition of sexuality meaning this much broader subject of sex, gender, and orientation, it would still not be a social construct. Here's an example:
 
 
Here's a male hyena, who happens to only be interested in homosexual acts, but is still plays the role of being masculine in the setting by acting submissive to female hyenas, thus the hyena has a gender (masculine), sex (male), and orientation (homosexual), and just because he can't fit these together to form an identity doesn't mean he isn't afflicted with the phenomenon of his sexuality.
 
 
[[User:Daxus Inferno|Daxus the Harbinger of Lameness]] ([[User talk:Daxus Inferno|talk]]) 17:14, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
 
 
''4. I've never had ever seen someone get so butthurt about correcting an unfinished page. Most other wikis I've seen reading and posting on the talk page before it's done isn't considered a bad thing. There is no objective way on how and when to correct people, so yes, I'm sorry that you FEEL that I was acting inappropriate. I don't even come on this wiki often, was I suppose to wait a week then remember to come back to correct this? I think this is distastfully eccentric on your part.''
 
 
...you bluntly told me that the entire page was "mistaken".
 
 
I have been citing Gender Studies textbooks while you cited your personal opinion and out of date dictionaries.
 
 
As I said before: no, sex between two men is not universally considered "homosexual" - "homosexuality" is a social concept, not an action. I've tried to explain this divide to you something like five times now and it's just not sinking in.
 
 
I've also repeatedly tried to emphasize to you that "Sexuality" means "Gender behavior and orientation", not merely "orientation", but you continue to use it in the sense of "orientation", not really comprehending my repeated attempts to explain otherwise.
 
 
You also seem to be mentally focused on a gender binary definition, when the ''entire point'' is that other societies did not have a concept of "homosexuality" or of "heterosexuality". They're not universal constants (if they were, it would imply that heterosexuality was a universal constant and thus "normal", and homosexuality "abnormal" - they're all social constructs and thus subjective).
 
 
'''You joined this wiki one day ago and made one minor edit to the Yi Ti page. Other than that, you, an entirely new user with no experience, have devoted a large amount of time to harassing about this.''' And according to your profile on another wiki you're only 17 years old.
 
 
I have repeatedly explained that I have taken graduate level history courses on medieval sexuality and gender, and I am citing ''major textbooks''. You are spamming your own poorly informed ''opinions''. Your only "citations" were ''the dictionary''.
 
 
You have had nothing of merit or substance to contribute to this discussion. This was internet spam and nothing more.
 
 
"'' I've never had ever seen someone get so butthurt about correcting an unfinished page''"
 
 
For the extremely crass "butthurt" comment alone, I am permanently banning you from this wiki. Good riddance.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 18:21, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 19:59, October 24, 2018

R'hllorEdit

Don't forget that the religion of R'hllor also practices sacred prostitution. It is mentioned in the novels and in the Histories & Lore by Thoros.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 15:58, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

I haven't gotten that far yet, but yes, I did not forget.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

Pillow-biter Edit

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?

I'm sorry I keep having to do this in spurts, I'm in the middle of an annoying summer semester course that ends next week.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:23, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

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 synthetizeEdit

I think the order of the article should be as such:

  • In the show
  • In the books
  • Short for real life

--Gonzalo84 (talk) 17:00, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'll play around with it then.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:06, August 26, 2015 (UTC)


...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)

Yikes, I can't believe I let this get so carried away; you guys were right, I need to shorten a lot from "in real life"...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 07:01, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

MAJOR REWRITE

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.

Still writing up the In the TV series section, but please review.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:18, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

FinishedEdit

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.

I mean the heraldry article etc. sets stuff up with in real life sections first too. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:30, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

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 societyEdit

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.)
Your thoughts on this?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:59, April 3, 2016 (UTC)


"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.

Yes, academics keep debating this but I could only say so much with limited space.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:18, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

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? Edit

(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?

(TheBigMassiveArkhamFan (talk) 17:21, July 15, 2016 (UTC)) TheBigMassiveArkhamFan

...they don't necessarily use such categories in-universe. See "Gender and Sexuality". --The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:44, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Considering the setting I'm not quite sure.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 02:33, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't think it is needed and would only alienate the LGBT community. It's not pertinent information for a character. QueenBuffy35px-Pink crown 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. QueenBuffy35px-Pink crown 03:05, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

There aren't that many articles that would make use of it. - Xanderen signature 16:46, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

AWOIAFEdit

Syalantillesfel (talk) 19:59, October 24, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.