![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threadwalkerChurning thoughts:
1. (SCA) I am still marvelling at the PPF. Riding the train has given me plenty of time to reflect on how awesome it was. Truly a "once in a life time opportunity of splendid fun".
2. (Tri) I did a practice transition in the kitchen last night under the amused and curious supervision of my 7yr old. (He thought the wet suit was cool and informed me that since it was rubber, electricity would bounce right off me.) The glide and the conditioner worked. (which also softened my skin and made me smell like strawberries.) I need a strategy for applying baby powder since I got it all over the place (!!), but it's definitely a keeper.
3. (Tri) Can't find my Orca tri sport top. Grrr.... Tore house apart looking for it. Will have to make due with the Tyr tri top unless it shows up.
4. (Tri) Gathering up my stuff. Wheee! I am carrying around a growing list and marking things off as I pack them in my box.
5. (book) I'm reading The Boundaries of Eros Sex Crime and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice by Guido Ruggiero and it has been thought provoking. I'm about 2/3 of the way through it and a few thoughts stand out strongly at this point:
I slapped the "explicit" filter on this post for my book comments. I'm not sure if this cut will also work, but here it is anyway.
a. Violence against women, especially in the sexual context, was a "given" and not noteworthy UNLESS she was of the upper most social strata. Women and men accepted that it was the way it was; small groups of men would break into homes to gang rape women and they were hardly punished. The penalties for theft (which were extreme based on documentation) were even down-graded if they were part of a rape crime. (I started to soap-box, but edited it out.)
b. Violence against children (those who were not mature enough to reproduce, which varied between the ages of 10-14) was severely punished. I'm interested to see that although women were marginalized, crimes against young girls could be punished with extreme measure. That, at least, was a relief to uncover.
c. Women were considered passive in the sexual context even when they were behaving sexually aggressive. It seems that regardless of how aggressive a woman was, the (male only) courts would document them as passive participants in sex. Based on all the content I've read so far, to me it looks like there is a mindset that men are dominant regardless of what's really happening; they absolutely feared and disallowed that a man could be swayed by love or desire for a woman and no matter what real role she played in the relationship, she was never the dominant or aggressor. The woman, to their mindset, had no power, which relates back to my first point. To me it reveals a driving fear of either being under the power of women OR a fear of admitting that women really had some power over the hearts and minds of men (keeping in mind that what men say in bed and what they say in front of their peers in the government halls are probably 2 different things). When I'm done with this book, I want to read about Veronica Franco and see if the witch trial really happened per the movie, because with the idea that men feared women's power over their libido, it would be a short step for them to accuse their lovers of witch craft if they are somehow unmanned by having aggressive and/or passionate lovers in their life.
d. Methods of birth control existed. The text is clear enough to leave nothing to the imagination. I'm surprised you can find so much information in court documents.
e. Homosexuality among men was feared and often punished by execution (if the accused didn't successfully flee the city.) It was one of the only sex crimes that resulted in execution. And yet, homosexuality wasn't rare. I hadn't realized it was punished in such a vile manner; I'd sort of always assumed it was not approved of, but there was a "don't ask, don't tell" culture. My assumptions were so far from the truth, I had to stop reading to absorb the information.
f. The convents: There were some particular convents that upper class women went into where they entertained lovers, had children (then raised among the foundlings at the convent), and pretty much directed their own lives. "Get thee to a nunnery" actually sounds like the best advice so far.
1. (SCA) I am still marvelling at the PPF. Riding the train has given me plenty of time to reflect on how awesome it was. Truly a "once in a life time opportunity of splendid fun".
2. (Tri) I did a practice transition in the kitchen last night under the amused and curious supervision of my 7yr old. (He thought the wet suit was cool and informed me that since it was rubber, electricity would bounce right off me.) The glide and the conditioner worked. (which also softened my skin and made me smell like strawberries.) I need a strategy for applying baby powder since I got it all over the place (!!), but it's definitely a keeper.
3. (Tri) Can't find my Orca tri sport top. Grrr.... Tore house apart looking for it. Will have to make due with the Tyr tri top unless it shows up.
4. (Tri) Gathering up my stuff. Wheee! I am carrying around a growing list and marking things off as I pack them in my box.
5. (book) I'm reading The Boundaries of Eros Sex Crime and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice by Guido Ruggiero and it has been thought provoking. I'm about 2/3 of the way through it and a few thoughts stand out strongly at this point:
I slapped the "explicit" filter on this post for my book comments. I'm not sure if this cut will also work, but here it is anyway.
a. Violence against women, especially in the sexual context, was a "given" and not noteworthy UNLESS she was of the upper most social strata. Women and men accepted that it was the way it was; small groups of men would break into homes to gang rape women and they were hardly punished. The penalties for theft (which were extreme based on documentation) were even down-graded if they were part of a rape crime. (I started to soap-box, but edited it out.)
b. Violence against children (those who were not mature enough to reproduce, which varied between the ages of 10-14) was severely punished. I'm interested to see that although women were marginalized, crimes against young girls could be punished with extreme measure. That, at least, was a relief to uncover.
c. Women were considered passive in the sexual context even when they were behaving sexually aggressive. It seems that regardless of how aggressive a woman was, the (male only) courts would document them as passive participants in sex. Based on all the content I've read so far, to me it looks like there is a mindset that men are dominant regardless of what's really happening; they absolutely feared and disallowed that a man could be swayed by love or desire for a woman and no matter what real role she played in the relationship, she was never the dominant or aggressor. The woman, to their mindset, had no power, which relates back to my first point. To me it reveals a driving fear of either being under the power of women OR a fear of admitting that women really had some power over the hearts and minds of men (keeping in mind that what men say in bed and what they say in front of their peers in the government halls are probably 2 different things). When I'm done with this book, I want to read about Veronica Franco and see if the witch trial really happened per the movie, because with the idea that men feared women's power over their libido, it would be a short step for them to accuse their lovers of witch craft if they are somehow unmanned by having aggressive and/or passionate lovers in their life.
d. Methods of birth control existed. The text is clear enough to leave nothing to the imagination. I'm surprised you can find so much information in court documents.
e. Homosexuality among men was feared and often punished by execution (if the accused didn't successfully flee the city.) It was one of the only sex crimes that resulted in execution. And yet, homosexuality wasn't rare. I hadn't realized it was punished in such a vile manner; I'd sort of always assumed it was not approved of, but there was a "don't ask, don't tell" culture. My assumptions were so far from the truth, I had to stop reading to absorb the information.
f. The convents: There were some particular convents that upper class women went into where they entertained lovers, had children (then raised among the foundlings at the convent), and pretty much directed their own lives. "Get thee to a nunnery" actually sounds like the best advice so far.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 09:54 pm (UTC)She goes over the available data, which is actually pretty sparse. The movie takes elements and makes a story out of it, but the movie plot is a *big* stretch from the data.
From that book I learned about the gang rape issue in Venice, which Rosenthal presents as a "control/punishment" issue (i.e. men creating an enviroment where women need to be locked up).
The birth control method implied by Taking Positions/Il Modi/Peitro Arentino (sp?) verses is anal sex. Is that what you're referring to?
In other period of time (such as Rome), homosexuality is only punished when the person was the 'passive' partner. Was this the case in Venice, or were both 'top' and 'bottom' punished?
I've *got* to check this book out...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 12:44 am (UTC)Men were definitely controlling women, but I think they were controlling each other through the women, too. And Venice was visited by plague approximately once per generation throughout this period, so every 30 years or so the city was devastated and they needed to import more population to fill those voids. This created tension in the family dynamic and unbalanced that sense of "the expected norm for behaviour". It may have also unbalanced the ratio of men/women, but I'd have to dig through and see if this book comments on it.
Based on the cases, the recorded court rhetoric, and the punishment, I really get the feeling that men did not want women to have control or the appearance of power (again, who knows what goes on at home and whether public power equals private dynamic). On a conscious level it seems that everyone accepted that women were victims and, much as you might have your purse stollen today, you could be raped. Sort of "I hung the laundry out, last week I was raped and I hope I don't get pregnant. Shall we have stew for dinner?" There are a lot of cases of neighbors breaking in and raping neighbors or the attackers plot it out in advance. In the chapter on fornication, the author makes a convincing case taht many women are raped the first time and then afterwards the victim submits to her attacker and (passively) fornicates with him. The author definitely making the point that many sexual relationships are initiated through violence against the woman. Keeping in mind that this is what shows up in court, but still... the fornication reports aren't about rape, they are about property and the willingness of the woman is secondary. The chapter on fornication is also interesting because it discusses property, marriage laws, dowry, etc.
Birth Control:
Anal sex and pulling out were both used as birth control and so was ejaculating between thighs; this was done in both heterosexual and homosexual relations. Masturbation was acceptable (it shows up in the chapter on sodomy). Sex with animals was not acceptable. In one case 2 puella (girls considered too young for sex) were used between their thighs and the girls were not punished.
In Homosexuality:
Both the passive and the active were punished. The active was treated more brutally, frequently burned alive between the pillars in St Mark's square. There was a range of punishments for the passive and it didn't always end up in death; losing a hand, losing eyes, etc. When a man lost his nose (a punishment usually reserved for women), it was a signal that he was punished as a woman because he had no masculinity; viscious humor. It was remarked that losing limbs or eyes was particularly cruel for a tradesman because it cut him off from his livelihood. There were cases where rings of men were broken up and some "just got jail time". That doesn't sound too bad except the case they examine is a youth who broke out. His father tried to get him to finish his term and the youth reveals the injury to his body from torture and abuse he received in prison. Apparently being imprisoned for homosexual acts was like painting a bulls-eye on you.
I think it cost me less than $5.