Histsex archives April 2001

HISTSEX ARCHIVES: April 2001

From: L.J.Brewer@City.ac.uk

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:55:13 +0100

Subject: [histsex] Quick hello

Hi to all

I've just joined the list, my name is Laurence Brewer, based in

London, UK. I'm not an academic as such, but am involved with a

number of projects and initiatives associated with the UK Bisexual

community. I'm interested in the History of Bisexuality, from a

number of different academic disciplines, but more importantly I'm

interested in the History of the the Bisexual communities, their

political and social development.

Laurence

___________________________________________________________________From: Mal123nash@aol.com

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:26:33 EDT

Subject: Re: [histsex] Quick hello [Bisexuality]

Hello Laurence,

According to Magnus Hirschfeld, about four percent of the population

is bisexual. He maintained that two percent of the population was homosexual.

I should think that these numbers would be encouraging to anyone interested

in building a bisexual community.

With best wishes,

Michael (Lombardi-Nash)

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First Gay Activist

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000/memory.html

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: Memory Book 2000: A Festschrift

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:16:00 -0400

From: Harold Averill <harold.averill@utoronto.ca>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Quick hello

Hi, Lawrence,

I do not know if you will ever make it to Canada, but if you do and are in Toronto, drop in

to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. We have a considerable amount of information on

bisexuality in addition to our holdings on gay, lesbian and transgendered issues. You might

care to visit our website.

Harold Averill

Operations Committee

CLGA

___________________________________________________________________From: L.J.Brewer@City.ac.uk

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:39:24 +0100

Subject: Re: [histsex] Quick hello

Hi Harold

I might not be able to make it to Toronto, but The North American

Conference on Bisexuality, Gender, and Sexual Diversity will be

taking place during August 9th-12th, 2001 at the University of

British Columbia Conference Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada. It is predominently a north American Bisexual Conference,

and I am contemplating going is finances will permit. I would

expect that the organisers would be very interested in any offers for

workshops or even a possibility of a guest speaker to talk about

the collection, but more importantly a selection of specific Bisexual

primary resources for researchers of Bisexual Canadian History.

One of the main problems associated with developing a Bisexual

history is that many researchers and historians associate certain

individuals with Gay History etc. But some of the political history of

the 70's and 80's of Lesbian and Gay activists groups specifically

excluded Bisexuals from their ranks. This is potentially quite

significant in explaining the development of self organised Bisexual

communities, papers, books, conferences, as well as some of the

work related to Bisexual activism and the politics of inclusion in L

& G organisations to become LGBT. A lot of this history is quite

recent, and is still ongoing, as such there is some work but a lot of

it lies within community newsletters as source material. As for

Bisexuality in Canada, I'm aware that the current groups and

resources are relatively recent late 80's and 90's and was

wondering if there were groups which looked at Bisexual organising

and community building in the early 70's around the time of GLF

style liberatory politics ?

Oh by the way, the web site for the conference including details for

registration and submission for presentations can be found at the

web site below.

http://bi.org/~binetbc/2001/

Laurence

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:51:51 -0500

From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Quick hello

What IS the URL for the website? With thanks, Bob

>I do not know if you will ever make it to Canada, but if you do and

>are in Toronto, drop in

>to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. We have a considerable

>amount of information on

>bisexuality in addition to our holdings on gay, lesbian and

>transgendered issues. You might

>care to visit our website.

>>Harold Averill

>Operations Committee

>CLGA

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Leanne McCormick" <leannemccormick@hotmail.com>

Subject: [histsex] Introduction

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:35:35 +0100

Dear All

I am a PhD student at University of Ulster researching into prostitution in Ireland 1900-1945. I'm looking at refuge/rescue homes in Belfast in this period; moral preservation organisations and attempts to control sexuality; venereal disease especially reactions/legislation during the World Wars. </P>

I am also doing some preliminary research into pornography in Ireland 1921-1970's and wonder if anyone on the list has any ideas about whether there is anything written on this topic or any possible sources of information on it? Whether there were any specifically Irish publications?

Any help would be gratefully received!</P>

Thanks

Leanne McCormick

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: [histsex] Fw: 'Beat Back "Wife-Beaters"'

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:58:17 +0100

With reference to the recent discussion on the list (forwarded from another

list I'm on):

>>Beat Back "Wife-Beaters"

>>>>Dads and Daughters is joining other groups to condemn a website selling

>>tank-top undershirts embroidered with the words "Wife Beater." They sell

>>infant shirts reading "Little Wife Beater" and give this special offer

>>(we're not making this up): "I am a convicted wife beater. Please send me

>>a second beater [shirt] at half price. *Note: You must enclose proof of

>>conviction, court records, restraining order, probation officer's

>>phone#,... photos are NOT acceptable."

>>>>The rest of this site is just as bad, with the theme song "Smack My Bitch

>>Up" and an abusers hall of "fame." The shirts are sold in retail stores,

>>as well. At first we thought this must be a feeble attempt at humor, but

>>the seller indicates there is no irony at work.

>>>>Please call this business at 800-886-2653, email bruised@wife-beaters.com

>>or write 3619 Merrell Rd., Dallas, TX 75229 to demand a stop. Besides

>>trivializing and minimizing the horrible impact of domestic violence

>>(especially on children), this business insults every man who wears

>>tank-top undershirts. Thanks to the Feminist Faxnet for bringing this to

>>our attention.

>>>>See DADs' letter at

http://www.dadsanddaughters.org/Actions/wife%20beater.htm

>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>Dads and Daughters, the national membership nonprofit, provides tools to

>>strengthen father-daughter relationships and to transform pervasive

>>messages that value girls more for how they look than who they are. To get

>>this Update or to stop getting it, email info@dadsanddaughters.org

>>>>DADs: PO Box 3458, Duluth, MN 55803. 888-824-3237. DADs is a registered

>>reprint, but always acknowledge the source and list website:

>>www.dadsanddaughters.org. Thanks. This is Child Abuse Prevention Month!

>>Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT)

From: Mireille Miller-Young <mireille_creates@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re:[histsex] funding for sex(!!)

Me Too!

I need funding ASAP for study/research (not a

conference) on sexuality for THIS SUMMER. I'm the

person studying black women in porn. Please send any

leads my way too!

Thanks,

Mireille Miller-Young

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:25:10 -0400

From: Cristina Nelson <crn@alum.mit.edu>

Subject: [histsex] wifebeaters

Lesley

what is the URL for the wifebeaters website? I think my undergrads would

be very interested to see misogyny and capitalism at work in one fell

swoop. Thanks

CRN

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] wifebeaters

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:45:20 +0100

>what is the URL for the wifebeaters website?

As I said in my own message, I was posting this on from another list - so I

don't have the URL but I could make a reasonable guess on the basis of the

email contact given in the text that it's something like www.wifebeaters.com

Fuller details may be available via the site that's actually expressing

their concern about this enterprise (www.dadsanddaughters.org)

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:31:48 -0700 (PDT)

From: Lois Patterson <****@****>

Subject: Re: [histsex] wifebeaters - Precise URL for site

The precise URL is

http://www.wife-beaters.com

Their theme song is 'Smack the Bitch'.

You can also locate the form with the offer of the

second shirt 1/2 price with proof of one's criminal

wife-beating status.

I'm a little reluctant to post this, because it gives

them more attention.

Lois Patterson

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:19:39 +0930

Subject: [histsex] Introduction

From: "Liz Williamson" <geneste@webone.com.au>

Hi all

I've just joined the list at the suggestion of a lecturer. I'm an

undergraduate (soon to be Honours) student at the Australian National

University. My interests are currently focussed on anti-masturbation

literature (specifically, female masturbation), particularly in nineteenth

century Britain and North America.

Cheers, Liz

___________________________________________________________________From: MillerJimE@aol.com

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:36:15 EDT

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

geneste@webone.com.au writes:

<< My interests are currently focussed on anti-masturbation

literature (specifically, female masturbation), particularly in nineteenth

century Britain and North America.

Cheers, Liz >>

Ron Numbers, Prophetess of Health, has a section on this literature in

19th century North America. Of course, he tends to overstate some things for

its sensationalism, but there are some good references there.

Jim Miller

___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:56:28 -0500

From: Christina Matta <cmatta@students.wisc.edu>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

At 12:36 AM 4/3/01 -0400, you wrote:

>geneste@webone.com.au writes:

><< My interests are currently focussed on anti-masturbation

> literature (specifically, female masturbation), particularly in nineteenth

> century Britain and North America.

> Cheers, Liz >>

>> Ron Numbers, Prophetess of Health, has a section on this literature in

>19th century North America. Of course, he tends to overstate some things for

>its sensationalism, but there are some good references there.

>Jim Miller

When I see Ron on campus, I shall tease him about being Prophetess of

Health. Heh, heh!

As long as I'm posting, I'll introduce myself. I'm Christina Matta, and I'm

a graduate student in the history of science department at

Wisconsin. While right now I'm off working on botany-related projects, I

just finished a MA thesis on 19th-c American physicians' responses to

hermaphroditism, and thanks to some other coursework, I've earned myself

the reputation of being the resident expert on Weird Sex. Never mind that

I'm currently working on a paper in the history of plant pathology...

Christina Matta

c/o History of Science

University of Wisconsin-Madison

cmatta@students.wisc.edu

___________________________________________________________________From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:44:44 GMT

> My interests are currently focussed on

anti-masturbation

> literature (specifically, female masturbation),

particularly in nineteenth

> century Britain and North America.

My own impression, for what it's worth, is that you

will have a hard time finding very much British

material on this topic - compared to the torrent of

material on male self-abuse there seems to be very

little, possibly because there was not, or very

much less of, a commercial angle (i.e. by the 1880s

doctors were fulminating more about Evil

Money-Grubbing Quacks terrorising boys and young men

_more_ than about the actual dangers of onanism).

There is of course Baker Brown, but it's very dubious

whether BB can be taken as a typical figure. There are

occasional mentions (I think) in some social purity

tracts, but it would be interesting to see if these

originated from, or were influenced by, the N American

literature.

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________From: "Pablo Ben" <benpablo@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:35:13 -0000

Dear Christina Matta.

I am interested in reading your work on hermaphroditism and the medical profession in nineteenth century North America. I wrote an article on this question in the same period, but in Argentina. I considered European and North American influences. If you are interested we could change our writings mutually.

___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:16:25 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)

Subject: Re: [histsex] Quick hello

From: E.Saxey@sussex.ac.uk (Esther Saxey)

Afternoon,

I wasn't sure if this was an "introduce yourself" list or a "lurk until inspired" one, but will

follow the example of Lawrence. I'm doing a PhD at Sussex, UK, on Coming Out novels and stories.

Have recently been looking into Buffy the Vampire Slayer and homoerotic fanfiction on the net,

which was infinite fun.

(Also, I'm helping with the organisation of the upcoming Sussex conference (see below - should be

excellent, still seeking papers).)

Looking forward to continuing on the list,

Esther Saxey

www.geocities.com/dangerousrepresentations

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:59:12 +0100

Clare Scrine wrote:

>There is a little in the British gynaecological material - often in =

relation to >the pros and cons of clitoridectomy, discussion of which =

continues long >after Baker Brown. For other possible references there =

is of course 'that >vibrator book' =20

Yes probably there would be _some_ discussion in gynae lit but v little =

compared to the medical discourse on male masturbation. And I suspect =

that it was fairly rare in social purity and similar literature on the =

grounds of not putting ideas into girls' heads, whereas the assumption =

with boys seems to be that they will come across it - via 'evil older =

men', 'corrupt companions' or even the quack lit - even if they don't =

discover it themselves. (The 'possible' references in 'that vibrator =

book' may be false leads, on the basis of one or two I followed up a =

while ago).

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:11:26 GMT

From: "clair scrine" <cscrine@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

I too am interested in female masturbation as it relates to nymphomania - the primary subject matter of my doctoral thesis. There is a little in the British gynaecological material - often in relation to the pros and cons of clitoridectomy, discussion of which continues long after Baker Brown. For other possible references there is of course 'that vibrator book'

<DIV>Clair Scrine (Macquarie University, Sydney Australia)

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Pat Hawkins" <pat.hawkins@virgin.net>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Welcome to new members, etc

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:45:25 +0100

Hello All,

I feel a bit of a fraud at joining this group as I am not researching the

history of sex in any formal way. However I am very interested in it as a

background to my teaching. I am Senior Lecturer for Sexual Health at Luton

University (UK) and I am the developer and course manager for our BA/BSC

programmes in Sexual Health. This is concerned with sexuality and disease

in contemporary society and the issues they raise for carers/managers and

educators.

The course is imultidisciplinary but at the moment I seem to have a mix of

nurses midwives and prison officers! Part of my remit is to challenge

existing attitudes towards sexuality so of course it is useful to know where

they came from!

Pat Hawkins

----- Original Message -----

From: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex-owner@listbot.com>

To: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex@listbot.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:31 PM

Subject: [histsex] Welcome to new members, etc

> Histsex:For historians of sexuality -

http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/listinf.htm

>> --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor --------------------------

> Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Welcome to the recent influx of new subscribers to the list. Some of you

> have already introduced yourselves, but I do invite those who have not to

> do so (and this includes list-members of longer standing who have not yet

> formally introduced themselves) by saying a little about themselves and

> their interests in the history of sexuality.

> Please could list-members, when responding to a previous posting, try to

> snip it? (This is something that comes up for me every time I start

> editing another archive file to go on the website.) And also, when

> changing the subject of discussion, change the subject-line? (we are all

> sinners on this one...)

> I also draw list-members' attention to the history of sexuality research

> register on my website

> http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/hofsresr.htm - if you are

> interested in adding your name and information please contact me at

> lesleyah@primex.co.uk

>> Lesley

> histsex-owner@listbot.com

>>> ______________________________________________________________________

> To unsubscribe, write to histsex-unsubscribe@listbot.com

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:17:07 +0000

From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Count Cajus

Dear All,

Another obscure question which I hope someone out there can answer.

Does anyone out there have any details of the trial of the homosexual man,

Count Cajus, described--in perhaps too much detail--by Johann Casper in his

_Handbook for the Practice of Forensic Medicine, Based Upon personal

Experience_ vol 3, English trans., c.1864? If so, please tell me more!

And for those who are not familiar with the case, check this out:

Case LXXXIII

This investigation which brought seven companions before me to be examined

for pµderastia, was novel and unheard-of in the annals of psychology and

criminal law. It concerned a whole company of men, from an old Count Cajus

at the top, down to the very lowest classes. Unheard-of, I may well say,

for who ever heard of a written diary containing a daily record of the

adventures, amours, and sensations of a Pµderastus, such as was seized when

Count Cajus was arrested.

Casper, vol 3, p. 337.

Cheerio, Ivan

Ivan Crozier,

i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk

'ignorance is the first requisite of the

historian--ignorance, which simplifies

and clarifies, which selects and omits,

with a placid perfection unobtainable by

the highest art.'

--Lytton Strachey

___________________________________________________________________From: Mal123nash@aol.com

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:17:45 EDT

Subject: [histsex] Count Cajus

Hi,

Count Cajus is referred to in the major works by M. Hirschfeld and K.

Ulrichs; however, their source is J. Casper.

Michael (Lombardi-Nash)

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First Gay Activist

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000/memory.html

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: Memory Book 2000: A Festschrift

>>details of the trial of the homosexual man, Count Cajus, described by

Johann Casper<<

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:08:11 +0100

From: Diane Mason <d.mason@bathspa.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

Liz,

I have written an essay on masturbation in fin de siecle popular medical advice books for

women which you might find interesting. The piece is called something like 'Un-like a

Virgin: Virginity and Masturbation in Fin de Siecle Medical Advice Literature for Women',

published in Nickianne Moody and Julia Hallam (eds), Medical Fictions (Liverpool: MCCA,

1998). The ISBN escapes me right now. If you have problems accessing the piece, if you let

me have your address I will send you a photocopy.

All the best with your research.

With best wishes,

Diane Mason

___________________________________________________________________

From: Mal123nash@aol.com

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:46:56 EDT

Subject: [histsex] Hirschfeld & Ulrichs on Count Cajus

Hi Ivan,

In his "Homosexuality of Men and Women" (my trans.), Hirschfeld (taking

from Casper) mentions Cajus three times; (p. 530) : that Count Cajus assumed

that there was only one homosexual in 10,000; (p. 728): where C says he's an

aristocrat but sees his "brother" in the lowest class. "I have seen craftsmen

move freely in the homes of princes;" (p. 1063): C...was a high-ranking

aristocrat who captured much of Casper's interest. The detailed diaries of

this Urning, which named names along with all his experiences, had fallen

into the hands of the police. Even Friedrich Wilhelm IV had them placed

before him. The result of this was a lengthy criminal investigation, which

implicated many soldiers who long before had been discharged to their

families. The final outcome was a trial against Baron von Malzahn (Cajus) and

others, into which Casper was drawn as an authority.

In his "The Riddle of 'Man-Manly' Love" (my trans.), Ulrichs (taking

from Casper) also gives three references: (p. 76), that the threat of

imprisonment never deterred an Urning ("the same prison in which the

unfortunate Urning v. Malzahn [Cajus] wasted away and died a decade ago,

because he was condemned for Uranian love"); (p. 146): Casper's impressions

of the Cajus' diaries is given: "benumbing"; Ulrichs remarks that "all of

this may truly be 'numbing' to a Dioning"; (p. 150): Casper calling Cajus'

behavior "silly and feminine."

If you've read the English translation of Casper, I don't think any of

this will be news to you.

With best wishes,

Michael

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First Gay Activist

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000/memory.html

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: Memory Book 2000: A Festschrift

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:22:31 +0000

From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Hirschfeld & Ulrichs on Count Cajus

Thanks Michael,

I wonder if there is any further knowledge about the case of Cajus out

there? It would certainly make for an interesting topic for a student, or

a paper.

As you saw, I got my knowledge of the case form the English trans. My

German is not too hot--it took me ages to read the 1852 paper which Casper

wrote--although it was very much worth it.

What are you planning to translate next now that MH is done? Something

whihc I think would sell would be a number of important early German

articles--Westphal, 1870; K-E, 1877; etc. I have further ideas on tis if

you are interested. But it would be like the English trans of Der

unterdrueke Sexus, from 1977. You know the collection?

I hope all is well.

Cheerio, Ivan

Ivan Crozier,

i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk

'ignorance is the first requisite of the

historian--ignorance, which simplifies

and clarifies, which selects and omits,

with a placid perfection unobtainable by

the highest art.'

--Lytton Strachey

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:27:59 +0000

From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Hirschfeld & Ulrichs on Count Cajus

Sorry list: a personal email....

But, Cajus is nevertheless an interesting topic for a student essay!

ijc

Ivan Crozier,

i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk

'ignorance is the first requisite of the

historian--ignorance, which simplifies

and clarifies, which selects and omits,

with a placid perfection unobtainable by

the highest art.'

--Lytton Strachey

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:27:19 +0000

From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Hermaphrodites

Another question, this time from a student.

Does anyone know of any easily accessible--published or on

line--autiobiographical writings frm hermaphrodites BETWEEN Herculine

Barbin and the post-1970s Intersex community? This is a big gap, but I am

finding it hard to find material for a student of mine, as she is looking

at hermaphrodite responses to the medicalisatin of intersex.

I hope that soemone has a site of interest, or a published account.

Cheerio, Ivan

Ivan Crozier,

i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk

'ignorance is the first requisite of the

historian--ignorance, which simplifies

and clarifies, which selects and omits,

with a placid perfection unobtainable by

the highest art.'

--Lytton Strachey

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: [histsex] Fw: Victorian Male Friendship, American Style

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:29:51 +0100

Of possible interest to list-members.

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

-----Original Message-----

From: K. K. Collins <kkcoll@SIU.EDU>

To: VICTORIA@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU <VICTORIA@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>

Date: 05 April 2001 15:00

Subject: Victorian Male Friendship, American Style

>List members may be interested in a current exhibition at New York's

>International Center of Photography entitled "Dear Friends: American

>Photographs of Men Together, 1840-1918." The web address is

> http://www.icp.org

>and a brief description of the exhibition, including one photograph from

>it, may be found by clicking on "Exhibitions." A book of the exhibition is

>also on sale; for details, click on "Museum Store."

>>Ken Collins

>Southern Illinois University Carbondale

>kkcoll@siu.edu

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: [histsex] Fw: RVW: Grasso on Herbert, _Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat_

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:17:12 +0100

Review which may be of interest

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

>H-NET BOOK REVIEW

>Published by H-Minerva@h-net.msu.edu (April, 2001)

>>Melissa S. Herbert. _Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat: Gender,

>Sexuality, and Women in the Military_. New York and London: New York

>University Press, 1998. ix + 205 pp. Appendix, notes, bibliography,

>and index. $50.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-8147-3547-9; $19.00 (paper), ISBN

>0-8147-3548-7.

>>Reviewed for H-Minerva by Gioia Grasso

><gioiac@crl102.crrel.usace.army.mil>, Independent scholar

>>Military Women Battle Gender Bias

>>In her book, _Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat: Gender, Sexuality,

>and Women in the Military_, Melissa S. Herbert provides an excellent

>overview and analysis of a problem encountered by many (if not most)

>women serving in the military today. Herbert, who served in the

>military and who now is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Hamline

>University in Minnesota, presents a carefully considered examination

>of the oftimes burdensome role of gender in society, specifically in

>the military society.

>>Herbert begins her book with a concise history of how women in the

>military have been perceived from the 1940s until the present. She

>poses the question, "Can one truly be a soldier and a woman and not

>be viewed as deviating either from what it means to be a soldier or

>from what it means to be a women?" (p. 10). The question is

>pertinent, because as Herbert exemplifies, "The military continues

>to see femininity as something to be denied or, at the very least,

>controlled." (p. 45) Herbert acknowledges that "thousands of

>women...have served admirably and have won the respect of their male

>coworkers, peers and supervisors...," but maintains that "women as a

>group are viewed as second class and are subordinated by the men of

>the military" (p. 122).

>>Herbert based her research on personal observation and a

>comprehensive survey of nearly three hundred female military members

>and veterans. Throughout her book, she cites the difficulty of women

>attempting to maintain femininity while simultaneously being

>perceived as competent. "[Women] must strike a balance between

>femininity and masculinity in which they are feminine enough to be

>perceived as women, specifically heterosexual women, yet masculine

>enough to be perceived as capable of soldiering" (p. 82). Herbert

>quotes a former Navy lieutenant: "One of the hardest parts of being

>a military woman is just the constant scrutiny and criticism. Act

>"too masculine" and you're accused of being a dyke; act "too

>feminine" and you're either accused of sleeping around, or you're

>not serious..." (p. 112).

>>Herbert describes the behaviors that military women frequently adopt

>to improve their chances for acceptance within the system. Gender,

>she posits, is "something that we do, rather than simply something

>that we may be." (p. 102) "Many of the women in this study

>indicated that they felt pressure to act more feminine or more

>masculine than they would have otherwise. Even more women noted

>that there were penalties for women who were perceived as too

>feminine or too masculine. Regardless of whether women are feminine

>or masculine, the potential penalty is discharge. If women are

>aggressive, they are [assumed to be] lesbians; if women are not

>aggressive enough, they may be viewed as incapable of leading troops

>and may receive poor evaluation reviews. In either case, the

>ultimate penalty can be discharge" (p. 120).

>>Professor Herbert's book is the most articulate analysis of gender

>and sexuality in the military that I have read. I find it

>interesting that her observations have proven to be most timely.

>During the week that I wrote this review, the _Detroit News_ (March

>26, 2001) ran an article titled "Will Rumsfeld Defend Gays in the

>Military?" The article cited this information from a

>Servicemember's Legal Defense Network report: "Lesbian-baiting:

>Women continue to be accused of being gay at a disproportionately

>high rate. They were 24 percent of SLDN's cases, but are only 14

>percent of the active forces."

>>This book is well written and, for the most part, well edited. (I

>did find several minor typos and an incorrectly cited reference).

>The book is nicely designed, with an easy-on-the-eyes typeface. The

>author's research is impressive; there is an extensive bibliography.

>A sample survey and a detailed description of the author's

>methodology are included.

>>This book, I believe, would be of especial interest to any woman who

>has served in the military since the abolishment of the draft in

>1973. (Before that, as the author notes, "women served in a more

>auxiliary fashion" and were not as likely to have had the same types

>of military experiences as women who have served since that time). I

>served in the military from 1973 through 1983, and there was nothing

>in Herbert's book that I didn't observe or experience firsthand.

> may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit

> is given to the author and the list. For other permission,

> please contact H-Net@H-Net.MSU.EDU.

___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:21:29 +0200 (MET DST)

From: <a2534304@Smail.Uni-Koeln.de>

Subject: [histsex] Fw: CFP: Shaw and Sex (12/?/01; journal)

The following CFP is perhaps of interest to the list members.

Stefan Blaschke.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:27:31 -0400

From: Colleen Franklin <cmfrank@uottawa.ca>

To: cfp@dept.english.upenn.edu

Subject: CFP: Shaw and Sex (12/?/01; journal)

The editorial board seeks article-length manuscripts for future volumes of

SHAW. SHAW 21 and 22 will be general volumes open to articles on any subject

related to the life, times, and works of G. Bernard Shaw. SHAW 23,

guest-edited by Michel W. Pharand, will have as its theme, "Shaw and Sex,"

broadly interpreted. The volume will include aspects of Shaw's writings as

they relate to sexuality, desire, love, marriage, and the nature of passion,

exploding the cliche of an asexual Shaw whose works are devoid of passion.

Contributors may wish to focus on such themes as Shaw's handling of

prostitution (of mind, body, and soul), sexual celibates as confirmed

bachelors and asexual women, predators and libertines, the relationship

between marriage and money, etc. Aspects of "sex" might include but need not

be limited to homosexual or lesbian desire, love triangles, adultery,

seduction, romance, and the language of lust and passion, in puns, double

entendres, allusions, and metaphors, in Shaw's works.

Contributors should submit manuscripts in three copies by December 2001 to

Gale K. Larson, SHAW Editor, Department of English, California State

University, Northridge, CA 91330. Contributors should follow the MLA Style

Sheet format (referring to recent SHAW volumes is advisable), indicate the

format and program used on the disk copy, and include postage for return of

material. Inquiries should be directed to galelarson@prodigy.net.

===============================================

From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List

CFP@english.upenn.edu

Full Information at

http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/

or write Erika Lin: elin@english.upenn.edu

===============================================

___________________________________________________________________From: "Quoth the Bug" <bug@interact.net.au>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introducing myself. Eep!

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:32:09 +1000

The verification e-mail thing said I should say something about myself =

and why I subscribed.

The list was suggested to me by someone already subscribed because she =

thought it might be useful for my English Honours thesis. In theory, =

I'm going to look at early Gothic literature (Radcliffe's Mysteries of =

Udolpho, Lewis' The Monk, etc) as constructed SM fantasies. Nothing =

very new. But I was trying to avoid the judgemental Freudian analyses =

I've read and look at them in regards to experiences of practitioners =

today - Gothic sentiments seemed to echo very nicely comments in works =

such as Moser and Madeson's Bound to be Free and Brame, Brame and =

Jacobs' Different Loving, etc.

Basically I just want to see Gothic heroines as people playing and =

shaping their game rather than passive victims or subversive survivors =

who rebelled against their male oppressors through their only available =

weapon of submission.

So that's me.

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: [histsex] CFP conference 'The Feminist 70s'

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:05:03 +0100

If you are interested, please contact the organisers, NOT me!

The Centre for WomenÆs Studies (University of York) invites you to a one

day interdisciplinary conference

The

Remembered Lived Mythic Politicised Forgotten

Nostalgic

Desired Ironic Gendered Rewritten Imagined

Seventies

27 April 2002

We seek papers, workshops and other presentations that address questions

about æthe seventiesÆ, that long decade around the 1970s. While the

conference will focus particularly on UK and wider European experiences, we

also welcome contributions from further afield. What were the feminist

seventies? What happened? What was achieved? What was the spirit of the

WomenÆs Liberation Movement? How did class, sexuality, race and dis/ability

mediate womenÆs relationship to ideas of liberation? Was there a provincial,

as distinct from a metropolitan, experience? How did the WLM touch womenÆs

lives? What did it mean to be a woman living at the time but not involved?

What impact did notions of empowerment and consciousness-raising have on

womenÆs lives? How were television, film and fiction negotiating with WLM

ideas? What was the political environment? How did social trends change?

What kind of pressures did different women have to face? What sorts of

popular culture sum up the seventies zeitgeist?

One strong theme will be a concern with the legacies of æthe seventiesÆ. How

can the seventies be re-read? What role does æthe seventiesÆ play in

contemporary feminist identities? Who has access to the feminist seventies

myth? Is experience privileged? How do older feminists engage with æthe

seventiesÆ? How do women who identified as feminists later in life relate to

æthe seventiesÆ? How do younger feminists relate to æthe seventiesÆ? What

does æthe seventiesÆ mean in the context of third wave feminism? What does

æthe seventiesÆ mean to WomenÆs Studies? Can æthe seventiesÆ offer any way

forward for the future of feminism?

Send abstracts of 300 words by 30 October 2001 to:

Seventies Conference (abstracts), Centre for WomenÆs Studies, University of

York, YORK, YO10 5DD

email: hcg101@york.ac.uk.

Contributions welcome from everyone who would like an opportunity for their

work

on æthe seventiesÆ to be opened up, challenged and developed. If you would

like to discuss an idea for a presentation before submitting an abstract,

please contact us at the above address.

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: [histsex] Fw: Permissive Society Conference

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:07:04 +0100

Probably already known to a number of list members...

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

>The Permissive Society and Its Enemies

>>Full Conference Programme Out, On-Line Registration Now Available -

><<http://www.icbh.ac.uk/icbh>>

>>This conference will bring together contemporary historians and researchers

>in

>related fields to consider the impact of the 1960s on British society,

>culture,

>politics and intellectual debate.

>>Organised by the Institute of Contemporary British History (a research

>department of the University of London's Institute of Historical Research),

>we

>will meet in the School of Advanced Study at Senate House. The main

sessions

>>will be from 9-11th July and on the 12th we will host a witness seminar on

>the

>1967 Abortion Act.

>>You can find the conference programme, a complete set of abstracts and an

>on-line registration from <<http://www.icbh.ac.uk/icbh>>.

>>More information is available from achishol@icbh.ac.uk

>>Lecture and paper givers include: Virginia Berridge, David Cannadine, Colin

>Campbell, Hera Cook, Brian Girvin, Lesley Hall, Arthur Marwick, Frank Mort,

>Alison Oram, Gail Savage, and Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska.

___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:39:51 -0700 (PDT)

From: "A. G. McLaren" <amclaren@UVic.CA>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Abortion and 'The Feminist 70s'

Dear List Members,

In 1971 Nouvel Observateur published the names of prominent French women

who had had abortions; in 1972 the first issue of Ms. Magazine had a

similar list of American women. Does anyone know if there was

a similar "coming out" of British women in any publication around the

same time?

Angus McLaren

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:02:38 +0100 (GMT)

From: "Marcus. Collins" <Marcus.Collins@newcastle.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Abortion and 'The Feminist 70s'

Dear Professor McLaren,

I'm afraid this doesn't answer your question, but may in any case be of

interest. I've come across a couple of public admissions of abortions

prior to 1967. The first is by Ann Quin in Nell Dunn's Talking to Women

(1965). The second is by Diana Dors in her autobiography Swingin' Dors

(1960), where she attributes her two abortions to having been 'weak and

under [her] husband's influence' (p. 139).

Hope this helps.

Best,

Marcus Collins

marcus.collins@ncl.ac.uk

___________________________________________________________________From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Abortion and 'The Feminist 70s'

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:32:45 GMT

Dear Angus

It's rather a long time since I was cataloguing the

ALRA archives, but I don't recall any public statement

in the UK of an equivalent kind. The two public

statements in France and the USA were both, of course,

several years later than the 1967 David Steel Abortion

Act. When that was actually going through parliament

there was not the same resurgence of feminism taking

place, though I would not be surprised to see some

personal testimonies appearing in press articles

around that time. Many women journalists were strongly

in favour, and there may even have been letters to the

press. But I think what women would have been writing

about was having semi-legal but expensive

'Harley-Street' abortions - i.e. to an extent exposing

the inequity and anomalies of the law as it stood,

rather than confessing to a criminal act - in fact the

actual aborting woman was not considered an offender

under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 in

UK law, as I understand it. Social stigma would have

been something else again, however.

An early semi-public revelation of having had an

abortion was Stella Browne's testimony to the Birkett

Committee in 1937 that she had 'the knowledge in my

own person' that abortion was not necessarily lethal

or even deleterious. But you probably know about this

already!

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:27:10 +0100

From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Abortion and 'The Feminist 70s'

As far as I am aware there was no declaration of that kind in this country until the early

1990s when there was an advertisement signed by a group of well-known women in response to

yet another attempt to limit the law. Perhaps another list member may remember exactly when

this was published.

Regards,

Hera

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:14:22 +1000

From: Geoff Coxon <Paginus@alphalink.com.au>

Subject: [histsex] Help with st georges poorhouse and Caoline baum

Can any lister shed some light on the St. George's Poorhouse that was

situated where hanover square is situated until 1871 and a woman called

caroline baum who was a well known brothel keeper in Australia from at

least 1876 to her death in 1908 she was known as madame brussels and

operated a brothel in Lonsdale Street melbourne under that name.

I believe that she was born Caroline Baum in Potsdam Germany in 1857 and

married a Studholme George Hodgson at St. George's Hanover square in

March 1871 and left for Melbourne Australia not long afterwards. Are

there any accessible records for this poor house or records of

immigrants from Prussia to England in the 1870's.

I know there was a large trade in young girls to and from the continent

in this period ( an d there probably still is) are there any records of

this movement as i wish to ascertain how caroline Baum came to be in

England in 1871 and was she a part of this trade?

Geoff Coxon

Victoria University of Technology

Footscray park campus

Paginus@alphalink.com.au

___________________________________________________________________From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Help with st georges poorhouse and Caoline baum

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:43:28 GMT

> > Can any lister shed some light on the St. George's Poorhouse that was

> situated where hanover square is situated until 1871 and a woman called

> caroline baum who was a well known brothel keeper in Australia from at

> least 1876 to her death in 1908 she was known as madame brussels and

> operated a brothel in Lonsdale Street melbourne under that name.

Can't help specifically with Caroline Baum, but the records of St George's Hanover Square

poor law

administration can be found at Westminster City Archives (I discovered this by a quick

search on

the relevant entry in the Wellcome Library Medical Archives and Manuscripts Survey,

www.wellcome.ac.uk/mams, which I take this opportunity to announce to the list). Up to

date contact details for this repository, which I do not have immediately to hand, can be

found via

ARCHON at the Historical Manuscripts Commission, www.hmc.gov.uk

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________From: "Philip Stokes" <philip.stokes@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introducing myself. Eep!

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:03:29 +0100

Maybe you know Marie Mulvey-Roberts of Bristol? She's done a lot on the =

Gothic in general, and has researched and written on Lady Lytton [of =

Knebworth]; also editing The Handbook to Gothic Literature.

Regards,

Philip Stokes

philip.stokes@btinternet.com

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:40:03 -0400

From: Harold Averill <harold.averill@utoronto.ca>

Subject: [histsex] Introduction

In response to the request that newcomers to the website introduce

themselves, here goes:

I am an archivist by profession, and have been a long-time volunteer

with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives in Toronto. I am

particularly interested in the acquisition of personal and

organizational records relating to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and

transgenders and in making them available to the public according to

standard archival procedures. I do this both at the University of

Toronto Archives, where I work, and at the CLGA. I am also interested

in basic information about such individuals, which I regularly dowload

from this website and place in the vertical files at the CLGA.

Harold Averill

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introducing myself. Eep!

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:04:16 +0100

A major purpose of my biography of Anne Radcliffe (Mistress of Udolpho) =

was to situate her firmly in the Wollstonecraft school of radical =

dissent. There is a detailed synopsis of the biography at my website:

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/radcliff.htm

The Mysteries of Udolpho has many elements of paranoia, but for =

sadomastochistic themes I'd also look specifically at her other fine =

novel, The Italian. The male protagonist of each novel is more or less =

castrated by the heroine. For example, in The Mysteries of Udolpho =

Emily's gardener accidentlaly shoots her lover Valancourt, who reappears =

with his arm in a sling, having been punished for his infidelity to =

Emily by symbolic castration. And in The Italian, Vivaldi spends much of =

his time in the chambers of the Inquisition with his head covered by a =

hood, a classic symbol of castration. There are also many suggestions of =

torture in the novel. Several readers of Radcliffe have noticed that her =

heroines finally marry the heroes only after the latter have been =

stripped of their masculinity. This might suggest an underlying lesbian =

impulse, and I believe that sadomasochism is usually treated by =

psychoanalysts as a consequence of displaced/suppressed homosexuality =

(which in this case would be female homosexuality). The sadomasochistic =

themes of Lewis's The Monk are of course more obviously connected to the =

author's homosexuality.

Rictor Norton, London

mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________From: "Donna Larsen" <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introduction

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:46:55

What is the education requirements to be an archivist. I find the idea of

such a profession interesting.

To all on this list;

I am personally interested in someday employed doing education and research

of Human Sexuality as a behavior. I am an idealist who is interested in

teaching people how to be tolerant and celebrate our idividual differences

in how we express ourselves sexually. One of my problems is that I have not

figured out which social science I want to approach this from. I like them

all, though I have not yet had experience with Anthropology. Can anyone

here give me pros and cons into the different social sciences in connection

to what I want to do. If anyone needs me to be anymore specific, feel free

to answer questions that will help in this exploration.

___________________________________________________________________From: "Dannielle Orr" <dorr@central.murdoch.edu.au>

Subject: re: [histsex] new subscriber

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:03:22 +0800

My name is Dannielle Orr. I am a PhD student in Women's Studies at =

Murdoch University in Australia. My topic is Anne Lister, an early =

nineteenth century Englishwoman who wrote voluminous journals about her =

life and radically different sexuality. I have been working on this =

topic for several years now, having done my Honour's thesis on her as =

well. I am still fascinated by her and her life, and am interested in =

analysing her documents within a lesbian history project. I am very keen =

to hear from anyone with similar enthusiasms!

Regards,

Dannielle Orr

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-------------------

Dannielle Orr

Women's Studies

Murdoch University

Perth, Western Australia

___________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:46:58 +0100

From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Hi,

The legal position on abortion in Britain before 1967 was that the aborting woman was

definitely legally culpable. Here is a description of the law as it stood in 1940, followed

by some comments from a medico-legal text book published in 1966 just before the Abortion Act

of 1967.

"The penalities prescribed in the 1861 Act were modified by the Statute Law Revision Act of

1893 and the Penal Servitude Act of 1891, and at present they are: Penal Servitude for life

or not less than 3 years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than 2

[p.427] years for any woman attempting to procure her own abortion or for anyone attempting

an abortion on a woman; penal servitude for not more than 2 years for any one unlawfully

supplying any commodity, &c., which he knows will be used for attempting to procure an

abortion. The 1861 Act made it - for the first time - a statutory offence for a woman to

attempt to procure her own abortion, but according to this Act the attempt is punishable only

if the woman is pregnant. However it has been decided that if she is not pregnant, the woman

can be prosecuted for attempting to procure abortion." 427-8;

>From David Victor Glass. Population policies and movements in Europe, Oxford:Oxford

University Press, 1940. (he also summarises arguments about the prevalence of abortion during

the interwar period earlier in the book)

In 1966, Bernard Dickinson devoted 5 pages to the "considerable confusion of legal and

medico-legal textbooks on the law" pp.96-100. He is clear that many doctors did not consider

abortion legal and would not undertake them.

Bernard M. Dickens. Abortion and the law, London:MacGibbon & Kee, 1966.

Some quotes follow which indicate why this was the case in relation to 'therapeutic

abortion', ie wher the mother's life was not in danger.

Take for example, "a woman of slightly below average health, when the danger to her

well-being arises from having to nurse and rear a child. Even where she already has a large

family and has perhaps been advised by her doctor to avoid another pregnancy, should she

conceive again she would probably fall outside the scope of the Bourne case which is limited

to pathological indications, and would regard social indications as too remote...."p.46.

The "threat of suicide may provide indication " (note only may), serious deformity or other

threat to child not grounds e.g. thalidomide pp48-49.

The case of R. v. Bergmann and Ferguson established that - "the criterion of legality and

illegality is not the mother's state per se, but the doctor's genuine belief as to her

condition and the consequences of the continuation of the pregnancy upon the mother, as

interpreted by the doctor in good faith." p.50 and see also 95.

Abortion was also always illegal if it was not undertaken by a doctor. I'd greatly appreciate

any comments from anyone who feels I have misread these texts as I know Lesley feels that

abortion was semi-legal whereas I think that overstates the degree of leniency.

regards,

Hera

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:26:42 +0100

Hi Hera:

I'm looking for my copy of Brookes on _Abortion in England_, which I can't

immediately locate, which is where I got the information that the aborting

woman was not, or at least very seldom (possibly after a short period in the

mid-C19th), prosecuted under British law. There is/was a difference between

the laws on the books and what was actually prosecuted (and the ways crimes

were actually presented in court, of which infanticide in the C19th is a

particularly good example). As with infanticide, i.e. very difficult to

prove deliberate intent rather than something 'naturally' going wrong, if a

woman procured her own abortion and presented at a hospital miscarrying it

would very infrequently have been possible to determine whether she had

induced it or whether it was natural. Even with intervention from an

abortionist, if she _subsequently_ was taken to hospital and claimed it was

a natural miscarriage, hard to prove to the contrary.

What's needed is perhaps more studies of actual cases in the courts and

what was the process by which abortionists were brought into the

judicial process - e.g. were police provocateurs involved or maybe obtaining

statements from women in extremis? Were there particular individuals whom

the police had an eye on?

I suspect that one of the major disadvantages of abortions in this legal

situation was that the woman would often be hustled out and made to go home

before she started miscarrying on the premises, rather than being under

observation for the duration.

Re doctors - I can well believe that there was enormous confusion as to

what might be legal (some doctors even after 1930 were claiming that it was

illegal to give birth control advice!), or might get the individual dr in

dodgy territory vis a vis the General Medical Council if not the Law.

However, literary and autobiographical anecdotal type evidence suggests that

throughout the interwar period and after (i.e. even pre-Bourne), _some_

doctors were routinely performing abortions for private patients. Under

antiseptic conditions and providing the practitioner had a reasonable degree

of skill, this would have been a relatively safe operation.

And Bourne, modified by the Bergmann/Ferguson judgement, did provide for

the doctor's 'good faith' medical opinion that a pregnancy should be

terminated. I have spoken to doctors who believed that the 1967 Act was

unnecessary because doctors had this clinical discretion (similar arguments

are sometimes made re euthanasia - that drs would 'ease the passing').

However, I'll try and check this all in medical forensic textbooks when

I get back to the Wellcome on Tues. (and see if I can locate Brookes)

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________From: "Brian Dempsey" <editor@scolag.org.uk>

Subject: RE: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 20:52:34 +0100

Is it really the case that abortion law was and is uniform throughout

Britain (Hera Cook) or the UK (Lesley Hall)? Is this not a case of the

English assuming that their law applies regardless of the facts? England is

not the UK, despite what English nationalists would have us believe, just as

America is not the world as American nationalists "think". Seems you can't

always believe what you read.

Brian

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:18:31 +0100

Re Brian's point about 'Britain' in this formulation:

You are quite correct. Abortion law is not uniform throughout the UK. Hera

and I are, I suppose, actually discussing England and Wales - the situation

in Scotland was different. Dugald Baird was doing legal social abortions in

Aberdeen in the 1930s, for example, but how far that would generalise to

anywhere else in Scotland, even in view of its different legal system, I'm

not sure. I also have a feeling that it's only recently that the '67 act was

extended to Northern Ireland. I'd also add that the actual implementation of

the 1967 Act is by no means uniform even _within_ England as of now (e.g. to

what extent 'social clause' operations are done within different Health

Authorities). Besides regional differences I suspect that there may have

been variations over time in the intensity of policing of illegal abortion.

I'm also - and I think this is where my difference with Hera arise -

inclined to think that private nursing homes where there were patients

paying ú100+ were not subject to very close scrutiny by the police, or

indeed anyone else (e.g. during the 1930s they actually had a worse record

on maternal mortality than home deliveries by midwives among the working

classes).

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT)

From: "A. G. McLaren" <amclaren@UVic.CA>

Subject: [histsex] abortion

Thanks to Lesley, Hera and Marcus for the information on abortion in the

U.K.

Angus McLaren

___________________________________________________________________From: Mal123nash@aol.com

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:39:38 EDT

Subject: [histsex] Munich: K.H.Ulrichs Plaza Third Anniversary

April 18 marks the third anniversary of Karl-Heinrich-Ulrichs-Platz in

Munich, Germany. Ulrichs is the first known Gay rights activist.

If anyone will be in Munich, take time to visit the square that honors

Ulrichs. Order a delicious original Bavarian brew (there's a bar in the

square) and toast the man who began it all by being the first to publicly

demand Gay rights -- in 1867.

Michael in Jacksonville

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: First Gay Activist

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000/memory.html

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: Memory Book 2000: A Festschrift

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/uraniamanuscripts

Urania Manuscripts: Gay History in Translation

___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in England

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:45:56 +0100

Well, I've done a bit of research and frankly the whole topic seems as

debatable as ever. Hordern, in _Legal abortion : the English experience_

1971 describes the pre 67 situation as there being 4 types of abortion (he

doesn't seem to count self-induced): 'back street', 'illegal' (qualified

doctors who did not go through all the hoops of second opinions), 'legal'

(and I wouldn't go this far with him) by which he means abortions done

privately in nursing homes with the second opinion that it was necessary for

the woman's physical/mental health, for money, and finally NHS abortions

(there were some being done pre the Steel Act on therapeutic grounds, though

I bet this varied widely by region).

Forensic medical textbooks seem to be concerned largely with doctors

covering their own backs - making sure they have a second opinion (even

pre-Bourne) before undertaking a therapeutic abortion, getting someone to

consult (even in a pinch a respectable nurse or midwife) if they find

themselves dealing with a woman who has procured an abortion elsewhere (in

case they themselves get accused) - but also indicate that doctors were not

obliged to reveal anything they had discovered in the context of a

confidential clinical encounter (i.e. they could refuse to talk to the

police). Also comments that natural miscarriages frequent enough that it

could be hard to say whether an abortion is spontaneous or induced.

I wouldn't entirely concur with Hordern's statement that all 'Harley St'

type abortions were strictly legal - I would guess that in many cases

corners were cut and there was not the lack of connection between the

certifying psychiatrist and the gynaecologist performing the actual

abortions which was supposed to exist. I suspect that the situation was

ambivalent enough that even doctors who conscientiously adhered to the

letter of the law might feel the odd nervous qualm. A similar situation to

censorship perhaps - sudden crackdowns and inconsistencies in the

application of the law.

Brookes's chapter on abortion and the law in _Abortion in England

1900-1967_ is very useful and gives a reasonable number of sample cases,

including doctors. However she also indicates that given the no of illegal

abortions taking place relatively speaking only a handful of abortionists

ever got prosecuted. Further research might indicate what were the

situations in which medically-qualified abortionists came to the attention

of the law, and if they were in some way marginal figures (women,

immigrants, etc) who were outside the mainstream of the profession and also,

perhaps, subject to more temptation (because of difficulties in establishing

themselves professionally, gender sympathy, or whatever). Was it only when a

patient died or was rushed to hospital with serious haemorrhaging? Or was

there more pro-active policing?

An interesting dissertation topic for someone.

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________From: "Pablo Ben" <benpablo@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in England

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:15:59 -0000

I am really surprised at the discussions about abortion. I live in Argentina and here it is forbidden by law. The situation is quite terrible and the mail I am sending now is an ilegal act as having an opinion positive to the legality of abortion is also ilegal. Some people has been publicly acused for defending the possibility of abortion in the media. In fact all the texts with massive circulation are against abortion, it is ilegal to write a book on abortion defending it.It would be called "Apology of Crime". So I am a criminal apologist.

To my knowledge there hasnt been never an important group in politics defending legal abortion. There has no been much fight about this subject, in my opinion. The actual activist on the subject nowadays in Buenos Aires, a city with 13 million, people is not more than forty, to be exagerated.

The thing that impacts me more is that Lesley Hall talks about certain flexibility in the law, or attempts to go beyond prohibition, and this is before 1967. I dont see this tendency not even now in Buenos Aires. There are plenty of abortions here, there are statistics and recently a woman physician wrote a master thesis in public health in which she investigates the amount of abortions. But they are all ilegal and there is a considerable number of women dying every year for risky and selfpracticed abortions. This is a result of a combination between the incredible cost of an abortion and the growing marginality and poorness.

An abortion (illegal) can cost from U$ 300 to U$ 1000, depending on the place it is done. The one at 300 is not very convenient except that you know it is a place in which other people had a good treatment. The ones at 1000 are the better ones, and women who are scarce of money but can pay for it making a strong effort preffer the ones with higher prices.

To give you an idea of the cost of this in relation to salaries, I will say that an average teacher in a primary school earns U$ 400 monthly for twenty ours of work at a week. The person who charges you the money of the products you buy in a supermarket earns no more than U$ 300 monthly for working between eight and twelve hours a day. A bank cleark earns around U$ 800 monthly. A driver working 8 hours a day in a bus earns around U$ 900 monthly.

The vast majority of the population does not have the money for an abortion and they have to ask for money to a lot of people stablishing a compromise to give it back later. Some of the people you ask for money you can tell them the reason, others you dont even imagine to do it.

Some years ago I saw an advertisment at the University, it was not very common to see that kind of things as social sciences in the University of Buenos Aires is a place more open to accept legal abortion. But it wouldnt be strange to see it in the rest of the city. The advertissement was done by the Catholic Church and it said somewhat like: "They are allways desappeared persons". The message of the advertissement was very easy to understand for any person living in Buenos Aires: They were comparing aborted fetuses with the 30.000 people killed by the last dictatorship to stop radical and leftist activism in the thirties. So it meant than a woman aborting had the same place than a militar man killing a left wing unionist or activist.

During the last militar government, between 1976 and 1983 a law was stablished that not only penalized abortion but also any kind of information on contraception could not be offered in public institutions, though private institutions were not forbidden to distribute information on contraception. This meant a double standard depending on the class in which the woman is situated.

In the last three years a number of laws have been passed at some provinces that accept as legal the information and some prevention in public hospitals. This meant a situation a little better from the one the dictatorship has stablished and the democratic governments had tolerated till 1999.

Two years ago there were elections to governor to the province of Buenos Aires. There were two main candidates, a woman called Fernandez Meijide who was in the opposition to the oficial peronist party and the oficial candidate by that party. Fernandez Meijide had defended and contributed to pass the laws I told in the other paragraph, and was acussed by that publicly three days before the elections. Fernandez Meijide who has very reformist conceptions in this and other points felt compelled to say publicly she was against abortion. Anyway she lost the elections.

Probably her position on abortion was not the key to understand her impossibility to be elected, but it is quite significant that the vast majority of the population voted against her although many of the women who took this decision comited abortion, and the same could be said about men whose women couple, friends, or relatives, had abortions.

I dont think people is not massively against abortion, and in fact there is probably a wide popular feeling positive to legalization. Anyway the question is silenced and people does not consider this a political thing important to be fought for. I dont think people in the elections I comented voted against abortion, what happened is that they didnt pay many attention to this feature in the political agenda. They were thinking in the way to go out of the economical crisis, or about other things considered relevant

Pablo Ben

___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:01:41 +0100

From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Hi,

First there are two perspectives - that of women and that of doctors. If you recall what I

posted about the law - the woman was liable to prosecution and this most definitely included

self-induced abortion. It was just hard to get evidence and doctors who attended a woman when

things went wrong usually did not wish to add to her problems by informing the police. But

the testimony by women is unequivocal - they take it for granted they were doing something

illegal and they had to behave in a clandestine manner. This meant they had little control

over the service they received.

They were often, though certainly not always, scared.

(This has a good account of a terrified girl - Clive James. Falling towards England:

Unreliable memoirs II, London:Jonathon Cape, 1985).

I don't know what the legal situation in Scotland was but it cannot have been very different

or women would have been going to Gretna Green for abortions.

(for non-English historians and those who never read historical romances - the Scottish law

regarding marriage was different for minors and young women, often heiresses, would elope to

Gretna Green, which was just inside the Scottish border to get married).

The difference in practice in Aberdeen (a city in Scotland) can be explained differently.

Dugald Baird pushed the regulations allowing for local authorities to provide contraceptive

advice (in his instance through hospitals) to the limit in a period when most local

authorities were very timid. He was doing the same with abortion. In other areas many women

who could have been granted abortions on medical grounds could not find doctors willing to

perform the operation - especially, of course, working class women who could not pay. In

Aberdeen those women all got abortions because the policy was to provide them. This was a

strongly eugenic policy by the way. Aside from my comment on sterlisations below I have seen

nothing that indicates it was pushed onto women - but further investigation is needed

(definitely a dissertation or even thesis topic here because it covers a longish period and

the evolution of eugenic ideas would be revealed).

There were clinics elsewhere in Britain which did some abortions on medical indications as

was allowed by the law prior to the Bourne case, which was about therapeutic indications not

medical ones.

The following information is from Geoffrey Chamberlain and A. Susan Williams. Antenatal care

in South Wales 1934-1962. Social History of Medicine 8.3, 1995. This article is based on

sampling medical records from an ante-natal clinic in South Wales from 1934 to 1962.

Ten women in the sample were recommended to have a termination of pregnancy, all before the

Abortion Act of 1968.The recommendation for four of the women also predated the test case in

1938 of Dr Aleck Bourne. The authors say:

'By todays standards, the indications for these women to have an abortion seems outstanding.

One woman was in her:

"Thirteenth pregnancy. Hypertension and suicidal depression. Hysterotomy and sterilisation as

soon as possible." '

All four case notes given include hysterectomy and sterilisation.

According to my notes from medical journal articles - all of Dugald Baird's abortions in

Scotland would have included sterlisations. These were working class women.

However in Penelope Mortimer's novel 'The Pumpkin Eater' (1962) a middle class mother who has

a legal abortion has been seeing a psychiatrist for depression for some time when she becomes

pregnant. She also has a sterilisation - probably a hysterectomy as well (A hysterectomy is

a major operation which for many women seriously diminishes their sexual responsiveness). In

all cases I am aware of, women who were offered legal abortions prior to 1967 had to accept

sterilisation.

This was a huge imposition of medical power - imagine if every women who has an abortion

today could never have another child. How many women would struggle on with unwanted

pregnancies? In the early period the women offered abortions were usually at a stage where

they wanted no further children but in the 1960s as the law was stretched and abortion became

more easily available this ceased to be the case. There is little research into unmarried

mothers but it would interesting to see if those unmarried mothers who were given therapeutic

abortions in the postwar period were also forced to accept sterlisations. This occurred in

the USA but medical policy there was more interventionist. (Those women who wanted

sterilisation alone were usually refused it by the way. See Aleck Bourne, 1955, for the

medico/legal position on this also).

On the subject of the police, otherwise known as the honest British bobby -

In the 1955 edition of Aleck Bourne's British Obstetric and Gynaecological Practice, a

standard text, he is very conservative about therapeutic abortions. He also comments

' b) however honest a doctor's intentions might be he would find it difficult to convince a

jury of his integrity if it were shown that his fee for the operation was excessive.'

So re the expensive nursing homes I think we should look in a different direction to see why

they were allowed to continue practicing. There was a massive police corruption scandal about

accepting bribes for pornography in Soho from the 1950s through to the 1970s - I have read of

no investigation about prostitution and police corruption but prostitutes' autobiographies

talk about corruption - either bribes or favours in return for being ignored. My assumption

would be that money changed hands regularly in relation to abortion. Paul Ferris certainly

did not think he was investigating legal operations when he wrote 'The Nameless' on abortion

in the mid-60s.There is also the issue of police resources - once illegal activities reach a

certain level of frequency they are impossible to police. The chance of being caught (as

Lesley suggested) falls simply as a matter of odds. And the impression given by the accounts

of abortion is that nursing homes tried very hard to make sure that they could not be blamed

if things went wrong - mainly by getting women off the premises.

Regards,

Hera

___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:04:50 -0700

From: sklausen@islandnet.com

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in England

Hello everyone,

The discussion about abortion has been so interesting that I feel impelled, after months of hovering on the sidelines, to finally introduce myself.

I've long had a scholarly and political interest in abortion, as practiced in the past and present. Currently I am conducting research on the politics of birth control in the British Colonial Empire from about 1900 to 1945.

With regards to Lesley's comments, I agree there is an interesting doctoral dissertation to be written on the policing of abortion pre-1967. I've done a little bit of research on this topic in 1930s Canada and found that illegal abortion, and abortionists themselves, became the focus of police investigation and prosecution only after women with botched abortions arrived at hospital emergency rooms in desperate condition. I don't recall finding evidence of anything more "pro-active" with regards to regulating the practice of illegal abortion and would be very interested to know of such cases if they did exist in England or elsewhere.

I'd also like to thank Pablo for his description of the situation in Argentina today. It really does boggle the mind that women seeking abortions are being compared to the killers under the extreme-right military regime. Clearly there is a huge struggle ahead in your country for those who believe that abortion should be safe and accessible. I am fortunate to live in Canada which is one of the few if not the only country in the world where abortion is nowhere to be found in the criminal code. In other words, there is no law regulating the practice of abortion in my country; it is deemed strictly a medical procedure and not a question for the courts at all. This is no accident, of course, but the result of organized lobbying and protest by reproductive rights activists. As you no doubt know, Argentina is not the only country where women face drastic choices re: abortion. While surfing the net a while back - not necessarily a safe source one must remember - I read that in the Phillipines there was legislation being proposed to turn the performance and acquisition of abortion into a capital offence. There are non-governmental organizations that track the status of abortion at an international level, and that try to work in solidarity with the courageous people in such countries as yours who are trying to challenge the status quo. If you are interested to learn more about such groups, please contact me privately and we can talk about this.

Best regards,

Susanne Klausen

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:34:47 +0100

From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex]abortion in Argentina

Dear Pablo,

Thank you for this description of the situation in Argentina. I think

the experience of British women was actually much like this prior to

1967. The disucssion about doctors and the law bypasses women - but that

is partly what we are discussing. It is easy to forget how much people

suffer.

Even in the postwar period many women died each year from bungled

illegal abortions - 108 such deaths were recorded in 1952-54 and 78 even

in 1967-69. Public institutions could provide only very limited

contraceptive advice until after 1966 and abortion was not legal until

1967.

However it was never illegal to defend abortion or to argue about it

here. The Catholics were not so important and the police were not so

very corrupt. This country has not experienced the terror of the

disappeared and nor was poverty so extreme.

Hera

___________________________________________________________________

From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex]abortion in Argentina

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:28:46 GMT

Dear Pablo

This is a very distressing account. Even in the USA

where there is such a strong anti-abortion lobby, at

least the topic can be discussed, though as a recent

edited volume _Abortion Wars_ indicated their agenda

has strongly inflected the parameters within which

'choice' can be posited and argued for.

On the difference between official/public perceptions

and attitudes, it was commented in the UK pre 67 that

it was frequently difficult to obtain convictions of

illegal abortionists since juries tended to

be sympathetic to their intention of helping out

distressed women, even when something went

disastrously wrong. (But there is a whole story about

juries being more 'liberal' or at least less concerned

over a range of sex-'crime' issues including

homosexuality and censorship than magistrates)

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Quoth the Bug" <bug@interact.net.au>

Subject: Re: [histsex] Introducing myself. Eep!

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:17:00 +1000

Thanks Rictor for your help. Your website was really useful and your =

comments about castration and homosexuality as stems for considering SM =

have certainly given me something to think about.

Ta muchly!

Christy

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Pablo Ben" <benpablo@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex]abortion in Argentina

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:58:08 -0000

I forgott to say something.

If we follow the idea of understanding the prohibition of abortion in the web of criminalization build by the state for social control purposes, we should consider not only how some social forces for the legalization exist prior to it, but also how the legalization meant a changing in a social regime on sexuality and gender. In this sense the legalizing of homosexuality in the same moment in England is quite significant, and I make a relation between this and what I wrote in the last mail about my talk with my mother.

Anything else.

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Pablo Ben" <benpablo@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: [histsex]abortion in Argentina

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:54:21 -0000

Thanks for all the comments. Id like to make some point about the discussion though I know little about Englands history, so my words should not be taken very seriously.

In Argentina it is not very common to have trials against abortionist women. In a recent investigation on abortion written by Laura Bengochea the woman physician I mentioned in my last email, she proves how many physicians in public hospitals (state institutions with freee or very cheap attendance where women and men from the popular sectors go) practice some kind of abortion. Normally the woman is registered as having had an spontaneous abortion that was completed at hospitals. This is not so easy to get for poor women, normally you have to go to the hospital after having damaged yourself in an irreversible way for the fetus. But sometimes it can be done without such a dangerous threat to your own body.

It is very rare to have a physician denouncing a woman for doing this kind of things, but sometimes it happens.

The ways in which this kind of abortions are practised and the amount of physical suffering depends on the specifical relation between women and doctors. Some women take the risk of go to the hospital without damaging their own body, others dont. Some doctors can accept a woman asking to have an abortion, others dont.

I think in Argentina prohibition cannot be thought as an impossibility of abortion, but as a very opresive way to do it. The antiabortion law is a social norm and social norms face what Lacan would call "the real", i.e., the emergence of things out of their prescribed features.

I think Heras perspective is a little problematic as in her discourse there is little possibility to see how the law came to exist in 1967. I really cannot say anything respecting to "historical facts" in England, but it has little verosimilitude for me that a society where the antiabortion front is so strong can pass a law making it legal.

I think abortion, as many other things, in terms of the political field where the legalization is the result of a historical construction of a hegemony. In Heras perspective 1967 seems to be a dividing line coming from where?. Which social processes permited the passing of a legalizing law?

Prohibition, I think, has always an amount of violations to it, not only practised by women. It is a little maquiavelic to opposse doctors and women in a so dichotomical way. To say this is to recognize resistance in social processes and not to say that the norm wasnt that oppresive and consequently make our political questioning lighter. I dont think Lesleys idea is to build a tale in which women were able to scape suffering as Hera suposses if I did not make a wrong interpretation of what she said.

I feel Heras intention to build a strong differentiation between pre and post 1967 expresses a political perspective I apreciate from a country in which prohibition is quite devasting. But I dont think Lesley pretends to build a much more complex history where resistance can be taken as a political way of learning how to eliminate prohibition. Reading Lesleys writing I could imagine a way of building a resistance by convincing physicians to violate the law in a country where public debate is quite difficult. Reading Heras perspective I can just feel the impossibility to make any political move and then it seems we should wait to a legalizing law to come from I dont know where.

We are three brothers and my mother had an abortion to not to have a fourth kid. She did not tell us that for years as she felt shame for that. But though she felt that she always considered she had done right. I knew about my mothers abortion because my aunt told it to me. An year ago my mother was able to talk it to me, and I think she felt very good by doing so. I could connect to her a little more as gay, as I explained her that the prohibition of sexuality out of reproduction was the same big idea working against abortion and stigmatizing homosexuality as an illness.

I think this shows that prohibition is not able to eliminate afective links bearing a capacity to resist and this is an important thing to analyze.

The last thing I would like to say is that the penalizing consequences of prohibition should be explored in another way. I work in the history of sexuality in turn of the nineteenth century and beggining of the twentieth in Argentina, and I am exploring the legal condition of women in this moment. I found that in the penal code almost all the crimes had a much more big penalty for men than for women as the latter were considered incapable of comiting them. But in contradiction with this abortion is defined as a woman crime par excellance. In fact, doctors faced a much lighter penalty in comparison to women.

I think this has a relation with the division between the public and the private spheres. That is to say, if women are part of the private, they are not associated with crimes typical of the public, and the way to criminalize them is inextricably linked to the control of their bodies, which is a private entity. In this logic there is anyway an impossibility to observe how the public gets in the private itself when the state controls womens bodies. Here we can note an ideologically sustained contradiction.

The important thing, I think, is to see the way in which prohibition is situated in a web of criminalization practised by the state to make social control possible. Then the discussion should be how abortion criminalizes women in relation to the place they have in society, and not to see only the impossibilities of practizing abortion but the resistance to it and to its criminalizing effects on women.

I repeat. Mine is not an authorized voice to speak about Britain, but I thought it could be usefull to make this points as I consider a history of pre 1967 England should be usefull to think the way to get a 1967 in countries like Argentina.

Pablo Ben

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:44:45 -0500

From: Gail Bederman <Gail.Bederman.1@nd.edu>

Subject: Re: [histsex]abortion in Argentina

I've been following this thread on illegal abortion in England and

Argentina with great interest--thank you all.

But I want to make sure that everybody interested in the question

knows Leslie J. Reagan's recent book on the U.S. case, _When Abortion

Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and the Law in the United States

1867-1973_. Reagan does a tremendous job showing the *changing*

patterns of prosecution of abortion during these years, in the United

States. Prosecution patterns, and access to abortion varied over the

years, even though the laws on abortion did not. (She looks

extensively at court records and corner's records in Chicago, thought

she looks nationally at medical ideas and trends).

For example, prior to the 1940s, abortionists tended to be prosecuted

only when the woman died; but during the 1940s, abortionists were

prosecuted most vigorously, even though mortality from abortions was

generally decreasing. (The one exception: because good abortionists

were driven underground, bad abortionists got more clients, and they

killed and maimed a lot of folks.)

Best,

Gail

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] the legality of Abortion in Britain

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:39:31 +0100

Hi Hera:

You wrote

>In all cases I am aware of, women who were offered legal abortions >prior

to 1967 had to accept sterilisation.

Presumably this was under the NHS (i.e. not private 'Harley St' abortions as

a rule)? It occurs to me that when abortions _were_ done under the NHS

pre-1967, in most areas this would almost certainly only have been when

there were MAJOR indications that continuing pregnancy would pose a threat.

I.e. health problems which were likely either to be chronic (heart or kidney

disease e.g.) or recurrent (bouts of puerperal psychosis) - not just a

one-off situation. I remember the issue of abortion-and-sterilisation being

a major issue in the 70s, since this was often applied routinely to ethnic

minority women - lots of debates in e.g. _Spare Rib_ around issues of

reproductive choice not just being about abortion & contraception. But

before the Act probably it would have tended always to fall into a category

of desperate remedy cases.

I am sure also that there were vast differences between health

authorities and even individual hospitals between Bourne and the Act, since

after 1967 the failure of certain areas (notoriously Birmingham) to

effectively implement the terms of the Act led to the setting up of various

Pregnancy Advisory Services which did low-cost (?sliding scale) legal

abortions. Of course, you then also got straight commercial-type operations

opening up with similar names...

I'm not entirely persuaded that women knew that inducing abortion was

wrong in a legal sense. There are enough letters in the Stopes collection

that assume that women are allowed to 'do something' at least up to

quickening (from both women and men), that I'm not convinced that 'everyone

knew' that it was illegal. Maybe they wouldn't have asked doctors -

especially pre-NHS - but I think that has to do with attitudes towards

doctors similar to those which made people reluctant to ask them for birth

control or sexual advice generally. I also think that one of the reasons for

the resurgence of abortion reform activism in the 1960s was the discovery by

articulate middle-class women who had taken thalidomide (or even those who

had conscientiously been using birth control and fallen pregnant after

completing their families, or less than a year since their last pregnancy or

whatever) that they were not entitled to terminations (except by doing the

Harley St tango - there is testimony about this in the ALRA archives by

Diane Munday).

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:13:30 -0700 (PDT)

From: Lisa Diguardi <diguardi@yahoo.com>

Subject: [histsex] English law-1817

The Knitting Circle's website mentions oral-genital contact

being removed from the legal definition of buggery in 1817 but

no mention of the source. Does anyone know of any references for

this?

-Lisa Diguardi

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:14:55 -0500 (EST), Histsex:For historians of sexuality

wrote:

Histsex:For historians of sexuality -

http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/listinf.htm

--------------------------- ListBot Sponsor --------------------------

Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb

----------------------------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________

Date: 22 Apr 2001 12:16:47 -0000

From: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex-owner@listbot.com>

Subject: [histsex] Article on abortion in the UK

Coincidentally, there is an article on this by Nicci Gerrard in today's

_Observer_ (review section), at

http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,476313,00.html

Also of possible interest, there is a piece on Eve Ensler's _The Vagina

Monologues_

http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,476319,00.html

Lesley

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

(I tried to send this from home, but keep getting it returned as

'Permanent fatal errors' in the address. Could anyone who has had similar

problems posting to histsex let me know please? I've already contacted

their helpdesk)

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Peter Boston" <peterboston@paradise.net.nz>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +1200

I think that this is a misquote from Weeks's 'Coming Out', where he states

'As late as 1817 a man was sentenced to death under the buggery laws for

oral sex...' I'm not aware that the legal definition ever changed just its

interpretation by the Courts.

___________________________________________________________________From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:56:13 GMT

> I think that this is a misquote from Weeks's 'Coming

Out', where he states

> 'As late as 1817 a man was sentenced to death under

the buggery laws for

> oral sex...' I'm not aware that the legal definition

ever changed just its

> interpretation by the Courts.

This would have been my assumption - a change in case

law rather than actual legislation - but I am sure

that there are people on this list who are better

informed about both the history of homosexuality and

legal history than I am. Forensic medical textbooks of

a slightly later period were very coy about actually

defining 'buggery', as opposed to describing it as

horrible and against nature.

Lesley Hall

lesleyah@primex.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Hall ,Dr Lesley" <l.hall@wellcome.ac.uk>

Subject: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:43:05 +0100

Sorry - I'm on sabbatical away from my usual office and thus don't have my

case notes in front of me, nor do I have a convenient copy of Weeks; but as

far as I recall, the 1817 event was a court case which decided that oral sex

did NOT constitute sodomy within the terms of the law (as such the accused

was surely not hanged, since he was acquitted). This should further not be

read as suggesting that oral sex was a hanging offence prior to that time -

I have read through all the sodomy cases from the eighteenth-century Old

Bailey (Central Criminal Court in London, for our foreign readers!), and

none deal with fellatio. From what I can figure out about pardoning policy,

I SUSPECT that any conviction of sodomy when the act involved oral sex only

would have resulted in a pardon, since convictions based on anal

penetration, where the evidence was that emission did not occur inside the

body, resulted in pardons.

At least in theory, I think fellatio MIGHT have constituted attempt sodomy

(which seems to have been used in the eighteenth century as a catch-all to

include a considerable variety of sex between men, not merely what we would

now consider an attempt, viz an unsuccessful act of sodomy specifically);

but even the eighteenth century attempt cases in the Old Bailey make no

mention of oral sex.

peter

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:00:01 +0000

From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Dear Peter,

Couldn't cases of fellatio be considered to be conspiracy to commit sodomy?

There is a suggestion in the 1871 trial of Boulton and Park that they were

charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy (because of their dress

habit--i.e., dresses). But when they were acquitted of the other charges

of actually commission of sodomy (based on some great legal and medical

reasoning), they had the lesser charge quashed as well.

Is this right, legally? I realise I should just come down the stairs and

ask you this, but it is just after lunch....

Cheerio, Ivan

Ivan Crozier,

i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk

'ignorance is the first requisite of the

historian--ignorance, which simplifies

and clarifies, which selects and omits,

with a placid perfection unobtainable by

the highest art.'

--Lytton Strachey

___________________________________________________________________From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:47:28 +0100

Peter Bartlett writes:

"I have read through all the sodomy cases from the eighteenth-century =

Old=20

Bailey (Central Criminal Court in London, for our foreign readers!), and

none deal with fellatio. ... even the eighteenth century attempt cases=20

in the Old Bailey make no mention of oral sex."

It is quite true that fellatio is very rare in trial records, but there =

were a few cases.

In 1735 Henry Wolf met John Holloway on an errand for his master a =

brandy merchant, took him to several pubs where he fondled him, and then =

to Bishop's Gate Church Yard where he bought him a nosegay and a penny =

custard. Eventually he approached Bethelehem Hospital, which ran along =

the south side of Moorfields. "Coming to Bedlam, he perfectly pull'd =

and haul'd me in to see the Mad-folks. There he took me into the House =

of Office, and pull'd down his own Breeches and mine, and ---- in his =

Mouth: Then he carried me into the Booth, to see the Wild Beasts. When =

we came out, he said, he hop'd he should see me often." Wolf was =

apprehended at their next meeting, but no one appeared to support the =

errand boy's story, so he was acquitted. Source: Proceedings ... in the =

Old Bailey, Sessions 5, 22-24 May 1735, case no. 50, p. 82. The =

unprinted sources in the London Record Office almost certainly say =

explicitly that "he took my yard in his mouth" or something like it.

The MS trial reports in the London Record Office, though not the printed =

Sessions Papers, reveal that in 1704 John Norton [no relation] took hold =

of the privates of John Coyney, "putting them into his mouth and sucking =

them". This is cited in an article by Randolph Trumbach.

=20

There is an interesting case in Bath in 1802 when the young James Reader =

applied for a job to Rev George Donnisthorpe, who offered him liquor and =

money and said "if he [Donnisthorpe] were a Lady and had ten thousand a =

year he would bestow it all on him [Reader]". Donnisthorpe took Reader's =

"private Member in his hand, knelt down on one knee and put it into his =

Mouth", and then tried to lay him upon a sofa. Reader revealed his =

experience to a friend or guardian the following Sunday, but =

nevertheless saw Donnisthorpe four more times before warning him off. =

Donnisthorpe was indicted, but he claimed he had not received justice =

and the case was removed from the Quarter Sessions by a writ of =

certiorari, though he was not retried in a higher court. This is cited =

by Polly Morris, `Sodomy and Male Honor: The Case of Somerset, =

1740-1850', in The Pursuit of Sodomy: Male Homosexuality in Renaissance =

and Enlightenment Europe, ed. Kent Gerard and Gert Hekma (New York and =

London: Harrington Park

Press, 1989), pp. 395-397.

Peter is quite right that oral intercourse -- and much else besides -- =

would be regarded as "attempted sodomy" (which is the 18th cent. =

equivalent of "gross indecency"). But probably such incidents wouldn't =

get to the courts without being supported by more "sodomitical" =

evidence, and if anal evidence was found, the prosecutor wouldn't bother =

with the oral evidence (as it were).

We need to be careful not to draw too wide conclusions from the scarcity =

of oral intercourse in the legal records, especially those filtered =

records that reach the printed Sessions Papers.

=20

I can't track down the source for the statement about the year 1817.

=20

Rictor Norton, London

mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________

From: David Greenberg <david.greenberg@nyu.edu>

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:11:20 -0400

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Some years ago, a student of mine, Antony Simpson, did a Ph.D.

dissertation on the prosecution of sex-related offenses in the

18th-century criminal English courts. He found, as is suggested by Peter

Barlettin the message below, that accusations of oral sex (which was

excluded from the legal definition of buggery) were prosecuted as

attempted sodomy. - David Greenberg, Sociology Department, New York

University.

___________________________________________________________________From: "Brian Dempsey" <editor@scolag.org.uk>

Subject: RE: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:35:34 +0100

Peter is correct. There is a reference to the 1817 case in A Alison (1832)

The Principles of the Criminal Law of Scotland, Vol 1, 566 (though how

people confuse him with Weeks I know not).

The case in question appears to be Rex v Samuel Jacobs, Russ & Ry 332

The head note reads -

"The prisoner forced open a child's mouth and put in his private parts, and

proceeded to a completion of his lust. Held, that this did not constitute

the offence of sodomy."

If I recall correctly, the court, hearing to case on appeal from his

conviction, stated that a pardon should be applied for. Not sure why they

didn't simply quash the conviction. The report doesn't say what the penalty

was.

Brian

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Brian Dempsey" <editor@scolag.org.uk>

Subject: RE: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:37:30 +0100

I should have added that the C19th Scottish sodomy cases did not, as far as

I can recall, mention oral sex.

Brian

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Brian Dempsey" <editor@scolag.org.uk>

Subject: [histsex] C19th Scots oral

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:58:40 +0100

Having had a look at my notes -

Of the 20 allegations of sodomy reported to the prosecuting authorities in

Scotland in the C19th only one seems to have concerned oral sex. Of course,

this could reflect the fact that non-anal penetrative sex was being

prosecuted (or perhaps more likely not prosecuted) in lower courts and, most

importantly, the need to prove penetration (or the attempt) to show sodomy

(or the attempt).

The case which features oral sex was that of HMA v Bursey 1858 Unreported

AD14/58/106. He was charged with sodomy and the attempt and using lewd,

indecent and libidinous practices. These involved picking up (roughly

speaking) 16-18 year old boys working at the docks and seeking to penetrate

them, have them penetrate him or, in at least one charge, Bursey "working"

the youth's member with his mouth. Bursey was admitted two counts of

attempted sodomy and one that he "did wickedly and feloniously administer to

Colin MacTaggart a quantity of whisky, or other spiritous liquor and did ...

induce the said Colin MacTaggart to attempt to penetrate the hinder parts of

you the said GB, with his private parts" and was sentenced to life

imprisonment.

In HMA v Whitelaw, 1824 Unreported (Currently wrongly filed in bundle of HMA

v Lockie AD14/28/317) Whitelaw was said to have threatened to put his penis

in his victim's mouth.

Otherwise the focus is on anal penetration, intercurial (sp?) and

masturbatory sex.

Brian

___________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:38:31 -0500

From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817

Rictor, thank you for your scholarly thoroughness. I'm bemused by

the courting rituals? of the nosegay & penny custard :)

>In 1735 Henry Wolf met John Holloway on an errand for his master a

>brandy merchant, took him to several pubs where he fondled him, and

>then to Bishop's Gate Church Yard where he bought him a nosegay and

>a penny custard.

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:34:34 -0500

From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: [histsex] English law-1817 (Fwd from Peter Bartlett)

Am I reading you correctly that anal sodomy in which emission

(ejaculation?) did not occur inside the body was pardonable?

Of course my prurient nature wonders about the "evidence" of internal

"emission."

>From what I can figure out about pardoning policy,

>I SUSPECT that any conviction of sodomy when the act involved oral sex only

>would have resulted in a pardon, since convictions based on anal

>penetration, where the evidence was that emission did not occur inside the

>body, resulted in pardons.

___________________________________________________________________From: Swamp1800@aol.com

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:14:51 EDT

Subject: [histsex] anonymous sex in late 18th century

Once again the Jefferson-Hemings scandal is making news in the US. Despite

recent DNA evidence that Jefferson fathered one of Heming's children, a panel

of scholars has decided that it is more likely that Jefferson's younger

brother consorted with the slave. Others point out that this is the first

time that the brother has been suggested as the culprit. (All other

relatives, who were accused by Jefferson's defenders, are ruled out by the

DNA evidence.)

My question is this. In the late 18th century was casual sex outside of

marriage usually done anonymously, that is, neither partner knew the real

name of the other?

One thing that struck me when reading Trumbach is how startling it is to read

the names of the perpetrators of the sex act. Of course, the names are in the

court records and we must use them, but while Joe Blow and Jane Short, to

make up an example, did the deed and paid the price, is it likely that when

they met that they necessarily knew each other's real name?

Taking this back to Jefferson, while his face is well known to Americans now,

there is much evidence that it was largely unknown when he was alive, even

when he was President of the United States. I'm speculating that as a single

man in Paris or even on the road in the US, he might have been accustomed to

slipping out of his persona as diplomat and "Founding Father," and looking

for sex with no fear that a woman he might use knew who he was. Or, might

there have been a fear of a network of spies that kept any public figure of

the day circumspect? I don't think that was the case in America.

Taking this back to his relationship with Hemings, I'm wondering if

consorting with a slave was possible to such a self conscious Great Man,

simply because in matters of illicit sex he had grown accustom to thinking he

was nameless and hence blameless.

Bob Arnebeck

Wellesley Island, NY

http://hometown.aol.com/Swamp1800/sex.html (sex in the 1790s)

___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Apr 200