HISTSEX ARCHIVES: May 2001
© Lesley Hall and list contributors
From: "theo van der meer" <1vandermeer@planet.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:26:02 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Greenberg" <david.greenberg@nyu.edu>
To: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex@listbot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are ancient Roman sources referring to fellatio, but it was
> considered defiling to the mouth of the fellator. I think it is a
> reasonable inference from the limited historical record that the
> practice has become more popular in the last century or so, and this may
> reflect improved hygiene. David Greenberg, Sociology Department, New
> York University.
It is of course very plausible that hygiene got to do with it. I think on
the other hand that one should not overlook an issue like class. It is only
an anecdote, yet I was reminded about several men I used to know who were
born around 1920 and who have told me independantly from one another that
until the late sixty's they would only engage in mutual masturbation, and
that in the circles they moved around in that was the norm. In the gay scene
they moved around in people who fucked and fellated were the subject of
gossip. These men were both middle class and so were their circles. These
men also claimed that in the late sixty's they began to change their sexual
habits under the influenece of American gay porn that became (more) widely
available at the time. There is also a gap of course between actual
practice and representations or norms: I am reminded of the early safe sex
campaigns here in the eighty's which not only were explicitly based on the
assumption that gay men in Holland had less anal intercourse than their
American counter parts, but also gave the clear message that anal
intercourse was morally bad, e.g. with posters of pictures by Maplethorpe of
a butt with the text "Exit Only".
To return to the 18th century, in the few cases I have found of oral
intercourse, class was obviously an issue, both in men's confessions and in
writings. Oral intercourse was thought to be an aristocratic vice. To give a
few examples of what showed up in my material: during a first major wave of
prosecutions in 1730 several house servants who had been arrested told about
a very wealthy patrician who not only used to fellate them, but was also
into the kinky habit of spitting their sperm in a glass of wine and drink
it. In a pub in Utrecht at that time, where many sodomites used to come, the
pubowner would recommand two men to his well off customers, because they
"sucked out the nature". Obviously this is speculation but since these men
served rather well to do customers, would it not be likely that they had
learned these practices from their social "superiors'? In 1765 a common
peddler stood on trial in Amsterdam who had fellated a friend, yet he had
learned it from a doctor who according to the sources "practiced [medicine]
among many of the first in the city." Tax records show that the doctor owned
considerable property. The doctor had fellated the peddler when the latter
had consulted him for his heart condition and the doctor had said on the
occasion, "oh boy, I swallowed it." (The fact that he said something like
that seems to indicate something in itself.)
Most of the men arrested in Holland between 1675 and 1811 (when same-sex
behavior was officially decriminalized) - of course most of them belonging
to the lower and often lowest classes - had engaged in mutual masturbation
and anal intercourse, indeed often reversing active and passive roles. When
and how behaviors began to change remains to be seen. In my current research
on sex crimes after 1811 I have found lower class men from the late 19th and
early 20th century who had been caught in (what was deemed to be) public
space while engaging in fellatio. At the present state of my research it is
difficult though to say whether that behavior was wide spread or not. It is
also questionable whether the sources I am using right now are able to tell
us about that at all, since obviously by that time interrogations and
trials focused on the public indecency rather than on the specifics of
sexual behavior or on networks of like minded culprits.
Cheers,
Theo van der Meer
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 00:41:59 -0500
From: Steven Reschly <sdr@truman.edu>
Subject: [histsex] Feet
Sometimes a foot is just a foot.
Actually, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the euphemism of choice is "feet"
plural. It is used in some interesting idioms. When King Saul went into a
cave to relieve himself, literally he "covered his feet" (I Samuel 24.3,
similar phrase in Judges 3.24). Cutting off the hands and feet (2 Samuel
4.12) or the "hair of the feet" (Isaiah 7.20) was an extremely shameful
punishment, sometimes done to captured soldiers, as a sign of destroyed
masculinity. People in a city under siege might have to drink the "water
of their feet," meaning their own urine (2 Kings 18.27 = Isaiah 36.12).
The noun is female and is used at least once to mean specifically female
genitalia, referring to "her afterbirth that comes out from between her
feet" (Deuteronomy 28.57).
References to "feet" in Ruth 3, as in Ruth uncovered the feet of Boaz on
the threshing floor (a place associated with fertility), are at least
puns. He sure woke up happy the next morning!
However, all those references to washing feet as a sign of hospitality mean
real feet. Unless you wish to believe the ancient Hebrews were really kinky!
Best,
Steven Reschly
Truman State University
___________________________________________________________________From: "Bent Flyvbjerg" <bf@i4.auc.dk>
Subject: [histsex] MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:40:34 +0200
Dear colleagues,=20
With this note I would like to let you know that my new book MAKING =
SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER: WHY SOCIAL INQUIRY FAILS AND HOW IT CAN SUCCEED =
AGAIN has just been published by Cambridge University Press. The book is =
being published as a CUP textbook. I include the following for your =
information:=20
- The Table of Contents=20
- The book's back cover text.=20
I hope this is useful. Please feel free to forward this message to any =
relevant person or listserv.=20
If this mail is of no interest to you, I am sorry and apologize for the =
inconvenience. Also apologies for any cross posting.=20
Best wishes,=20
Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor=20
Aalborg University, Dept. of Development and Planning=20
9220 Aalborg, Denmark=20
email: flyvbjerg@i4.auc.dk=20
=20
CONTENTS: MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER=20
Acknowledgments=20
1. The Science Wars: A Way Out=20
PART ONE: WHY SOCIAL SCIENCE HAS FAILED AS SCIENCE=20
2. Rationality, Body, and Intuition in Human Learning=20
3. Is Theory Possible in Social Science?=20
4. Context Counts=20
PART TWO: HOW SOCIAL SCIENCE CAN MATTER AGAIN=20
5. Values in Social and Political Inquiry=20
6. The Power of Example=20
7. The Significance of Conflict and Power to Social Science=20
8. Empowering Aristotle=20
9. Methodological Guidelines for a Reformed Social Science=20
10. Examples and Illustrations: Narratives of Value and Power=20
11. Social Science That Matters=20
Notes=20
Index=20
=20
FROM THE BACK COVER OF MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER=20
MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER presents an exciting new approach to the =
social and behavioral sciences. Instead of trying to emulate the natural =
sciences and create a kind of general theory, Bent Flyvbjerg argues that =
the strength of the social sciences lies in their rich, reflexive =
analysis of values and power--so essential to the social and economic =
development of society. Moving beyond the purely analytic or technical, =
Flyvbjerg compares the theoretical study of human activity with =
real-world situations and demonstrates how the social sciences can =
become relevant again in the modern world. Powerfully argued, with clear =
methodological guidelines and practical examples, MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE =
MATTER opens up a new future for the social sciences, freed from an =
inappropriate and misleading comparison with the natural sciences. Its =
empowering message will make it required reading for students and =
academics across the social and behavioral sciences.=20
PIERRE BOURDIEU, COLLEGE DE FRANCE: "This is social science that =
matters."=20
ROBERT N. BELLAH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: "This is a book =
I have been waiting for for a long time. It opens up entirely new =
perspectives for social science by showing us that abandoning the =
aspiration to be like natural science is the beginning of wisdom about =
what we can and ought to be doing instead. It is a landmark book that =
deserves the widest possible reading and discussion."=20
ED SOJA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, UCLA: "This =
brilliant contextualization of social inquiry, hinging on both Aristotle =
and Foucault, gives new meaning to the concept of praxis. It will be of =
interest to everyone concerned with making democracy work."=20
STEVEN LUKES, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: "Flyvbjerg, author of RATIONALITY AND =
POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE, an innovative, fine-grained and =
civically-engaged study of local power in Denmark, here reflects, in =
accessible and pleasurable prose, on large, challenging questions: What, =
fundamentally, makes social science different from natural science? Why =
is it relatively so poor in producing cumulative and predictive =
theories? What kinds of knowledge should it seek and with what methods? =
His answers, drawing on Nietzsche, Foucault, Bourdieu and others, are =
worth the close attention of those predisposed to reject them out of =
hand."=20
There's more information about the book at www.us.cambridge.org and =
www.uk.cambridge.org.=20
___________________________________________________________________Date: 1 May 2001 08:58:21 -0000
From: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: [histsex] Introductions, etiquette, etc
Welcome to new subscribers. 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 the text down to whatever is relevant, rather than reposting what is
sometimes a whole string of earlier messages? (This is something that
comes up as a source of irritation every time I start editing another
archive file to go on the website.)
And also, when changing the subject of discussion, please think, and
change the subject-line to something which actually reflects the content
(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
___________________________________________________________________Date: 1 May
2001 09:07:41 -0000
From: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: [histsex] Reviews
The idea has recently been suggested to me of having reviews on Histsex.
At the moment attention is drawn to reviews on H-Net and elsewhere, but
although I think I did mention the possibility of original reviews in the
mission statement for Histsex, so far these have not been a feature. I
think this is an excellent idea, and reviews posted to the list could
subsequently be added to the Histsex area of my website.
As a preliminary to more specific thinking how this might be practicable
(probably a designated reviews editor(s) would need to be appointed),
perhaps list-members could indicate a)whether they would like the list to
include reviews b)whether they would be interested in reviewing themselves
and in what sort of area c)any other thoughts on this subject. Obviously
if there's no interest, or not enough to sustain this initiative, it will
not be worthwhile working out practicalities.
Thanks in anticipation for your thoughts and comments
Lesley
histsex-owner@listbot.com
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 1 May 2001 03:48:25 +0100
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rydstr=F6m?= <jens.rydstrom@historia.su.se>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
In a court case from 1913 in the little town of Oskarshamn, Sweden, a
cinema-owner stood trial for anal, oral and masturbatory sex with a
barber-shop assistant. According to the police interrogation, the two men
had experimented with many different kinds of sexual intercourse, and the
cinema owner "had said on one occasion that it was common in America that
intercourse was performed in the mouth."
In Gothenburg, in the 1930s, dozens of men were prosecuted for "unnatural
fornication", many of whom worked on the Swedish America Liners. They
testified about many sexual encounters in New York, almost always involving
oral sex, whereas this was unusual between the men in Gothenburg.
One should of course not jump to conclusions from that kind of testimonies,
especially if they are formulated in a context which wants to place the
roots of perversion with "the others" - but after having studied 2,300
court cases I think I can say that the focus of attention in Sweden passed
from anal penetration (most often connected with bestiality) to mutual
masturbation and oral sex, the latter often being associated with
influences coming from America, either by returning emigrants or by sailors.
Jens
Jens Rydstr÷m tel: +46-8-84 50 60 (h)
Dept of History tel: +46-8-674 71 05 (w)
Stockholm University fax: +46-8-16 75 48 (w)
S-106 91 Stockholm
Sweden
jens.rydstrom@historia.su.se
http://www.historia.su.se/safari/artiklar/rydstrom.htm
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 13:00:53 +0100
From: Paula <fa1912@wlv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Reviews
Dear Lesley
I think the idea is a great one - the Institute of Historical Research's
one is excellent and perhaps the review section you envisage could be along
those lines.
Paula Bartley
At 09:08 01/05/01 -0000, you wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:25:40 +0100
It's surprisingly difficult to determine exactly how clean our ancestors =
were. Speaking mainly about the middle and artisan classes during the =
early modern period, a slight misapprehension about personal hygiene has =
arisen because the British hated taking *baths* (and didn't regularly =
immerse their bodies until after World War II), but in fact they did =
*wash* themselves every day, using a handbasin and water jug and wash =
cloth and soap. They did not regularly change their underclothes, =
however. During the 17th century they regularly used alum as a =
deoderant, but during the 18th cent. there are hardly any references to =
this, which may mean the practice died out or may mean it was so =
ubiquitous that it isn't mentioned. The main source of body-stench =
during the 18th cent. came from the mouth. People did brush their teeth =
but the available pastes etc. were wholly inadequate, and everyone's =
mouth was full of rotten teeth. Oddly enough, this does not seem to have =
discouraged a widespread practice of kissing.
=20
--
Rictor Norton, London
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
___________________________________________________________________
From: Swamp1800@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:37:06 EDT
Subject: Re: [histsex] anonymous sex in late 18th century
In a message dated 4/30/01 1:47:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Gail.Bederman.1@nd.edu writes:
<< There's no reason to think Jefferson
was more scrupulous than other sexually-active slave-owners, when it
came to sexual relations with slaves. >>
Of course, the history of sex can be summed up in three words: "Everybody did
it." But where's that leave historians of sex?
Like the Nazis, slave owners, now have the reputation as the consummate
sexual predators. So let us leave Jefferson in hell.
Let me rephrase my question: the modern age is quite kiss-and-tell. The 18th
century leaves us little to go on. Even though it was an age obsessed with
name and fame, and lusty, much of the history of its sex involves parsing
court cases. So I'm asking, and Leporello's "Madamina!" is echoing in my ears
as I write this, was sex outside of marriage largely an anonymous affair? I
just read about Boswell and I've already forgotten if he assumed an alias
when he went for a walk in the park.
Mille e tre!,
Bob Arnebeck
Wellesley Island, NY
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:19:33 -0500
From: Gail Bederman <Gail.Bederman.1@nd.edu>
Subject: Re: [histsex] anonymous sex in late 18th century
RE: demonizing poor, misunderstood slave owners and the angelic
Jefferson: There is actually quite a bit of information and a
large scholarly literature about the history of sexual relations that
occurred between white men and enslaved women in early American (and
an excellent book by Martha Hodes about sexual relations between
white women and black men in the antebellum south.) So we don't have
to demonize slave owners in our imaginations. It's been studied
nearly to death, already using the normal scholarly sources, which
are not nearly as scarce as you might think.
But let me be more specific in regards to your question:
Anonymous sex became a possibility only when cities became large
enough to allow anonymity in the first place--esp. London. London
was not the typical case even in England.
In the Early American context--where life was overwhelmingly rural
and there was no London--, there were only a handful of cities large
enough to allow anonymous relations prior to about 1840.
In the slave south--almost entirely rural outside Charleston and New
Orleans, which were themselves comparatively small--the kind of
anonymity you envision is impossible to imagine. Anonymity in
Monticello or anyplace in 18th century Virginia just doesn't fit in
with the typical available living arrangements.
Regarding the question of whether sex between slaves and masters was
well-known, let me paraphrase Mary Chestnutt's diary, written about
the time of the civil war: (I don't have the phrase in front of me.)
She wrote: Any woman can tell you the identities of the the father of
all the mixed-race slave children on all the neighboring plantations.
But when it comes to the mulatto children on her own, she professes
entire ignorance. These, she seems to think, fall from heaven.
Anonymity is only possible in large cities, or in frontier situations
when visiting between households is impossible. Jefferson didn't live
in that kind of situation in Virginia, as I understand it. And even
there, the others living in the households--slave and free--certainly
knew what was going on, which is not really what I would call
anonymity.
Gail
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Sibalis <msibalis@wlu.ca>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Mine own research focuses on male homosexual activity in France since the
eighteenth century. The evidence is rather tenuous, but there is very
little mention of oral sex between men in the 18th century -- the police
records mention (with some exceptions) only anal intercourse and mutual
masturbation. Oral sex does appear to have become more prevalent in
France from the early 19th century and to have been fairly common by the
end of the century. I cannot say whether this reflects reality or is
simply because of the nature of the evidence.
Certainly, many female prostitutes in France specialized in fellatio by
the latter part of the century -- according to one source, they even hired
young men on whom they could practice to perfect their skills. (According
to one doctor, these young men were so "drained" of their vital fluids
that they sickened and died within a short time!) Scattered evidence
suggests that the practice of fellatio was spread to North and South
America by French prostitutes (or prostitutes who advertised them as
French). I have also heard the suggestion that American GI's picked up a
taste for fellatio from prostitutes they visited in World War I and
brought it back to America.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael D. Sibalis
Associate Professor
Department of History
Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA N2L 3C5
(519)-884-0710 ext. 3141
msibalis@wlu.ca
___________________________________________________________________From: David Greenberg <david.greenberg@nyu.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:26:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
These remarks of Theo are very interesting. I will have to check to see
whether Kinsey found similar class differences. Theo, I wonder whether
you have any ideas as to why these class differences should have
existed? Could it be that hygiene was better in the aristocracy? David
Greenberg
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 21:23:14 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: [histsex] "The priesthood is becoming a 'gay profession' like
hairdressing"
Forwarded by Paul Moor
The Telegraph, London
30 April 2001
'Cliques of gay priests are dividing Church'
By Victoria Combe, Religion Correspondent
The growing number of homosexual men training for the Roman Catholic
priesthood is creating "divisive cliques" of gay and straight students,
the rector of a leading English seminary says.
Fr Kevin Haggerty, rector of St John's seminary in Wonersh, Surrey, says:
"It would seem to me that sub-cultures are a danger. They are
inappropriate for the priesthood and contrary to the openness required for
a priest."
Fr Haggerty raises the issue in a Channel 4 documentary, Queer and
Catholic, to be broadcast next Saturday. The presenter, Mark Dowd, a
former Dominican friar who is gay, claims that the priesthood is becoming
a "gay profession" like hairdressing.
Speaking to The Telegraph yesterday, Fr Haggerty said: "I don't think we
can avoid the issue any more. A lot of people's gut reactions to this
issue are not rational. They immediately think of the risk of abuse of
children. The problem for the Church is one of perception.
Homosexuality is not a problem in itself; the important point is the
sexual maturity of the priests."
He said the Church had introduced psychological assessments for all
candidates in which they were asked about their sexuality. "What we want
to find out is whether they are able to make free, moral decisions about
their lifestyle."
The programme claims that there are many practising homosexuals in
seminaries who conceal their sexuality. It includes interviews with
ex-students of the English College in Rome, where the Archbishop of
Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, was rector in the 1970s.
Chris Higgins and Dr Dennis Caulfield, who were seminarians there between
1996 and 1999, claim that students were reprimanded for calling each other
by girls' names. Mr Higgins, now a probation officer, was ordained a
priest despite his relationship with Dr Caulfield, who had left the
seminary to become a doctor.
Mr Dowd, 41, was a friar at Blackfriars in Oxford from 1981 to 1983 when
Fr Timothy Radcliffe, now Master of the Dominicans, was prior. He left
after falling in love with an ex-friar who visited the priory for supper.
Dowd says: "It was love at first sight across the refectory table."
The Catholic Media Office questioned whether the programme was helpful,
adding: "It is an issue which seminary rectors are talking about."
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 22:03:55 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
>It's surprisingly difficult to determine exactly how clean our ancestors
>were. Speaking mainly about the middle and artisan classes during the
>early modern period, a slight misapprehension about personal hygiene has
>arisen because the British hated taking *baths* (and didn't regularly
>immerse their bodies until after World War II), but in fact they did
>*wash* themselves every day, using a handbasin and water jug and wash
>cloth and soap. They did not regularly change their underclothes, however.
>During the 17th century they regularly used alum as a deoderant, but
>during the 18th cent. there are hardly any references to this, which may
>mean the practice died out or may mean it was so ubiquitous that it isn't
>mentioned. The main source of body-stench during the 18th cent. came from
>the mouth. People did brush their teeth but the available pastes etc. were
>wholly inadequate, and everyone's mouth was full of rotten teeth. Oddly
>enough, this does not seem to have discouraged a widespread practice of
>kissing.
>>--
>Rictor Norton, London
><mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
>http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
Nonsense, Rictor. Men and women regularly immersed themselves--in rivers,
streams, and other bodies of water. This is what "bathing" meant, well
into the 19th century.
Jack Kolb
Dept of English, UCLA
kolb@ucla.edu
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:38:07 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
>I am reminded of the early safe sex
>campaigns here in the eighty's which not only were explicitly based on the
>assumption that gay men in Holland had less anal intercourse than their
>American counter parts, but also gave the clear message that anal
>intercourse was morally bad, e.g. with posters of pictures by Maplethorpe of
>a butt with the text "Exit Only".
Have you any idea where illustrations of these safer sex posters
using Mapplethorpe's imagery might be viewed/examined?
With thanks, Bob
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:42:20 +0100
Theo observes that "Most of the men arrested in Holland between 1675 and =
1811 ... - of course most of them belonging to the lower and often =
lowest classes".
=20
It is interesting how the criminal justice systems of different =
countries, and indeed different cities, produce different sets of data. =
It was my impression that most of the men implicated during the =
homosexual persecution in the Netherlands in the early 1730s were =
middle-class and artisans, though a lot of servants and some soldiers =
were also involved: decorator, embroiderer of coats, grain carrier, =
tavern keeper, candle maker, distiller, and that most of the men who =
fled were middle class and even upper middle class. But perhaps this was =
not the pattern over the whole period.
(Incidentally, as Gert Hekma mentioned earlier on the list, this Dutch =
pogram made quite a stir in the English newspapers, and I have published =
some of these reports on my website at =
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/1730news.htm ).
In 18th cent. England, most of the criminals *in general* did indeed =
belong to the lower and often lowest classes, but most of the men =
mentioned in the homosexual records belonged to the middling and mainly =
artisan classes (or lower middle class in modern parlance), many of whom =
owned their own places of work: shopkeepers, butchers, cabinet makers, =
carpenters, lots of clergymen and some schoolteachers, wig maker, =
innkeepers and publicans, and lots of soldiers and "errand boys" (but =
officially employed by, e.g., the post office, and not merely =
vagabonds).
This also seems to be the case in the northern German areas reviewed by =
Hergemoeller in _Sodom and Gomorrah_, and Hergemoeller also investigated =
the occupational data in the Venetian sodomite records and concludes =
that the dominant class of those arrested was the City middle class, =
handicraft workers, craftsmen etc., and especially proprietors of =
apothecaries' shops including surgeons. Hergemoeller says that "the =
lower classes, the day labourers, port workers, beggars, thieves, =
vagabonds, paupers, ... hardly come to light at all in the records" =
except for prostitutes. It's difficult to speculate on the reasons for =
this, but it does seem that in Italy and northern Germany the =
authorities did not regard the homosexual behaviour of the lower classes =
as a danger to society. In England all of the rhetoric of reformers is =
about reforming the loose morals of the lower classes, but the real aim =
seems to have been to regulate bourgeois sexuality (which I suppose is =
one of the basic meanings of puritanism).
--
Rictor Norton, London
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
=20
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:53:27 +0100
From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] boundaries/hygiene/oral sex
Hi,
Though improving hygiene is a literal fact, I was suggesting _symbolic_ boundaries when I
posted on this. Sex was dirty and unclean in late 19th and 20th century Britain (and other
European Christian societies?) regardless of the state of the body.
Here is a 20th century example re masturabtion -
( Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy. The rise and fall of the British nanny, London:Hodder and
Stoughton, 1972.)
'Alexander Weymouth ....can remember he and his brother Christopher Thynne fiddling with each
other's penises in the bath, perhaps the 'cleanest' place to do it. Nanny Marks said sharply,
"You're not being dirty are you?" '
Sex is dirty whether the boys are physically clean or not. Rictor's comment about kissing and
dirty mouths supports this. In that instance something we see as unclean was acceptable.
Ackerly found this a problem with his early 20thC working class lovers which suggests his
improved middle class dental health had altered his standards. The m-class perception of the
British working classes as dirty in the late 19th/early 20th century is probably a result of
changed middle class standards.
Gay sex is transgressive which raises the question of what gay men transgressed. The
passive/active argument is about gender roles and as I understand it the argument is that the
early to mid-20th century sees a switch away from seeing gayness as inverted gender roles to
object choice. ie a gay man ceases to be a man who takes on a sissy identity and becomes a
man who chooses to have sexual contact with another man. With inverted gender roles the
active man may not see himself as different to a man having active sex with a woman. So the
argument is that gender roles were being
transgressed I believe.
This issue of cleanliness raises another area with which sexual practice is intimately
connected but with which it is not fully over-lapping - treatment and perception of the body
(a la Norbert Elias).
My evidence suggests Rictor is not completely right about the daily baths - there is advice
in the 1920s about the need for routine washing of the genitals re hetero sex and
contraception from doctors. This is to both men and women. The doctors suggest those
routinely washing their bodies still do not wash their genitals. Still this may be the
product of late Victorian masturbation fears and not have been the case earlier.
Women were told they should not bath or during menstruation but this is rejected by advice
manuals in the early 20th century. As far as I know - which is only an impression - couples
did not like to have intercourse during menstruation. I believe this is a very old attitude
but again that is only an impression and don't know the rationale for it. In the 20th century
British women often dislike the 'messiness', of anything to do with their genitals.
Again - one way of seeing this menstruation practice is as boundaries - many many cultures
place boundaries around the polluting menstruating woman. People did not know that the
menstruating woman could not conceive so this is not a prohibtion that relates to
reproduction. As with fellatio it may be that a prohibition about the body influences sexual
practice.
Hera
p.s. Kinsey's working class is very interesting - do look it up David.
___________________________________________________________________
From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] boundaries/hygiene/oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:06:08 GMT
A couple of comments on Hera's good points on
cleanliness and boundaries:
>there is advice
> in the 1920s about the need for routine washing of
the genitals re hetero sex and
> contraception from doctors. This is to both men and
women. The doctors suggest those
> routinely washing their bodies still do not wash
Yes- the formula of 'up as far as possible, and down
as far as possible' - but 'the possible' itself gets
left out. I think this phrase specifically refers to
people washing themselves at the kitchen sink while
still more or less fully clothed.
> British women often dislike the 'messiness', of
anything to do with their genitals.
Yes - often cited as one reason why women did not like
using the cap - plus, the belief that the cap would
'get lost' - idea that the vagina was the entrance to
a tunnel into the entire inner regions of the body,
rather than finite.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:21:25 +0100
Jack Kolb writes:
"Nonsense, Rictor. Men and women regularly immersed themselves--in =
rivers, streams, and other bodies of water. This is what "bathing" =
meant, well into the 19th century."
Yes, Jack, you're right about "bathing", but Samuel Pepys and Dr Johnson =
did NOT run down to the Fleet ditch every morning with soap and towel in =
hand!
On mature reflection I realize that London had its "bath houses" and =
"hot houses" (sort of saunas, often "stews" of ill repute). Elizabeth =
Pepys once went to one and felt so virtuously clean that that night she =
wouldn't let Samuel get into bed with her until he "cleaned himself with =
warm water". Information courtesy of Liza Picard's amusing books on =
_Restoration London_ and _Dr Johnson's London_.
--
Rictor Norton, London
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
=20
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:03:56 +0200
From: Gert Hekma <hekma@pscw.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] oral sex and hygiene
Dear friends,
there is a strange presupposition in the discussion on oral sex and
hygiene. It is as if unhygienic sex is repulsive to all people, but as we
know from contemporary sexual specialisations, and also from Sade's 18th-C
works, the most repulsive may be the most exciting. So the hygienic
argument (as to why people would not suck dick) is not very convincing.
Nonetheless, oral sex is also much rarer in Sade's work than anal sex
(sodomy is for him the exemplary sin).
The hygienic argument is neither convincing because anal sex could for
similar reasons (mostly for the 'active' partner) also have been considered
to be filthy and unhygienic.
Gert Hekma
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Gert Hekma
Gay and Lesbian Studies
Dpt of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Amsterdam
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185
1012 DK Amsterdam
Phone: * 31 20 525 2226 or 6278877
Fax: * 31 20 525 3010
Email: hekma@pscw.uva.nl
Website: http://www.pscw.uva.nl/gl
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 13:33:04 -0700
From: IIRE <peter.iire@antenna.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European anal sex
The Amsterdam Municipal Archive had an excellent exhibit until a few
weeks ago called "From the Plague to AIDS" that included the
Mapplethorpe poster among various safer-sex posters on display and
discussed the issue of moralism in Dutch safer-sex education.
Unfortunately their website, which does show a couple of posters from
the exhibit, doesn't seem to show the Mapplethorpe one. You could go
make sure for yourself:
www.gemeentearchief.amsterdam.nl/schatkamer/educatie/aids/.
Footnote: a French friend of mine who was living in Holland at the
time thought that Dutch gay men were much more ready to give up anal
sex than French gay men would have been.
Peter Drucker
PS I suppose I should introduce myself, since this is my first post.
I'm a political scientist by training, from the US, now working at a
small progressive international research and education center in
Amsterdam, where among other things I lecture on sexual politics. I
recently edited an anthology called Different Rainbows: Same-Sex
Sexualities and Popular Movements in the Third World (there's more
information about it for anyone who's interested of course).
> > I am reminded of the early safe sex
> > campaigns here in the eighty's which not only were explicitly based on the
> > assumption that gay men in Holland had less anal intercourse than their
> > American counter parts, but also gave the clear message that anal
> > intercourse was morally bad, e.g. with posters of pictures by
>Maplethorpe of
> > a butt with the text "Exit Only".
>> Have you any idea where illustrations of these safer sex posters
> using Mapplethorpe's imagery might be viewed/examined?
>> With thanks, Bob
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:02:19 -0400
From: Cristina Nelson <crn@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: [histsex] cunnilingus
I have been following the oral sex thread with great interest, and have
learned a great deal. However, were I the proverbial Martian observing the
human race through this discourse, I would be under the impression that
oral sex is solely a male-male practice...which is my way of saying that
this discussion of oral sex has been limited to men. Although the original
post on this issue was, in fact, about male-male oral sex, I, for one,
would welcome a thread discussing male-female and female-female oral sex.
This is not at all my area of expertise (my work is on US women's
undergarments 1940-70) but I seem to recall from my readings that while
some authorities argued that female-female or male-to-female cunnilingus
did not enter sexual practice till the early 20th C, one authority
documented female-female oral sex in a (Dutch?) convent in the 15th C.
Since I have recently moved, I doubt I can easily get my hands on the last
source.
Just adding to the stew,
Cristina Nelson
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:24:43 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] anonymous sex in late 18th century
>Anonymous sex became a possibility only when cities became large enough ....
>>In the Early American context--where life was overwhelmingly rural
>.... there were only a handful of cities large enough to allow
>anonymous relations prior to about 1840.
>>Anonymity is only possible in large cities .... in Virginia ... the
>others living in the households ... certainly knew what was going
>on, which is not really what I would call anonymity.
According to the scenario sketched, I'm wondering what constitutes
anonymity ....
I'm reminded of the celebrated story of an earlier age ... the story
of Hester Prynne ... a story ... a fiction ... who *knows* ... I
wonder ....
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:28:34 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Abortion, homosex and Foot and Mouth
Have you the specific URL for this handy?
With thanks, Bob
>At last someone is prepared to speak the truth about abortion,
>homosex and Foot and Mouth disease. We await earthquakes with some
>trepidation.
>>Brian
>>>>Pastor Blames Gays for Foot-and-Mouth
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:29:56 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] "The priesthood is becoming a 'gay profession' like
hairdressing"
Have you the specific URL for this handy?
With thanks, Bob
>Forwarded by Paul Moor
>>The Telegraph, London
>30 April 2001
>>'Cliques of gay priests are dividing Church'
>>By Victoria Combe, Religion Correspondent
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Hall ,Dr Lesley" <l.hall@wellcome.ac.uk>
Subject: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:02:23 +0100
A colleague of mine is currently cataloguing a collection of photographs
amassed by Edwin Nichol Fallaize (1877-c.1957) in the early C20th. While
this does include pictures of fully-clothed musicians, matadors, and
schoolteachers, human curiosities (e.g. bearded ladies), matadors (including
women matadors), also more scantily-clad Bulgarian gymnasts, Swedish
simple-lifers and Olympic sportspeople, the collection also incorporates
pictures of naked people, more women than men or children by a proportion of
20:1. Many are posed cabinet photographs with elaborate mounts.
Fallaize was Hon Sec of the Royal Anthropological Society for about
a decade, but resigned the post in 1930 in mysterious circumstances, and all
documentation relating to him is missing from the records of the Society,
although he was able to leave his effects in their offices for many years.
However, on his death he was not obituarised in the Society's journal,
unprecedented for someone who had been both Fellow and office-holder. So
there are grounds for wondering whether there was something odd going on
with him.
What my colleague would particularly like to know is whether there
are other similar collections of photographs (blending the curious and the
curiosa) held elsewhere and if anyone has written on them. Any further
information on Fallaize would also be very welcome, and any thoughts
generally on this kind of collection of human images.
Many thanks
Lesley
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________
Date: 2 May 2001 12:54:59 -0400
From: "M.E.Buszek" <buszekme@chickmail.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Although only the Kinsey Institute's collection of anthropological/pornographic imagery in Indiana is the only one that comes to mind (and much of its present-day collection is the result of donations from private collections other than Dr. Kinsey's), it might not be a bad place to start looking/asking. It's possible that they have or can point you to a similar private collection.
And, although the primary subject isn't necessarily what you're looking for, a significant portion
of my article "Representing Awarishness: Burlesque, Feminist Transgression, and the 19th
century pin-up" (-The Drama Review- 43, no.4, Winter 1999: 141-161) is dedicated to
addressing the popularity and acceptance of collecting quasi-pornographic imagery in the era of
the carte de visite and cabinet card.
Hope this helps...!
Maria Buszek
Maria Elena Buszek
Instructor of Art History
Santa Monica College
http://homepage.smc.edu/buszek_maria
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:14:45 -0700 (MST)
From: Tim Hodgdon <Tim.Hodgdon@asu.edu>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
My question would be: why not both? I'm reminded of the
high-art-_versus_-pornography debate among liberals here in the US, for
which the same response has led to useful discussion and theorizing.
Tim Hodgdon
Ph.D. candidate
Department of History
Arizona State University
Tim.Hodgdon@asu.edu
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 19:50:39 +0100
Tim Hodgdon wrote
'Why not both'
which is a reasonable question. However, since the photos of naked women are
not in the standard anthropological mode of 'savages' but emanate from
commercial photographers' studios, this seems to raise intriguing questions.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________From: "theo van der meer" <1vandermeer@planet.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 00:20:10 +0200
Hi Bob,
Try the homodok website:
http://www.homodok.nl/
Texts there are also in English, and you can send queries i think.
Theo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
To: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex@listbot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
> >I am reminded of the early safe sex
> >campaigns here in the eighty's which not only were explicitly based on
the
> >assumption that gay men in Holland had less anal intercourse than their
> >American counter parts, but also gave the clear message that anal
> >intercourse was morally bad, e.g. with posters of pictures by Maplethorpe
of
> >a butt with the text "Exit Only".
>> Have you any idea where illustrations of these safer sex posters
> using Mapplethorpe's imagery might be viewed/examined?
>> With thanks, Bob
___________________________________________________________________From: Swamp1800@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:44:16 EDT
Subject: Re: [histsex] anonymous sex in late 18th century
In a message dated 5/1/01 1:23:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Gail.Bederman.1@nd.edu writes:
<< In the Early American context--where life was overwhelmingly rural
and there was no London--, there were only a handful of cities large
enough to allow anonymous relations prior to about 1840.
>>
I rummaged through my own web page and came up with something that might
elucidate the point I'm trying to make. Senator Gouveneur Morris wrote in his
diary on January 5, 1801, "Mr. Dayton sits with us and tells some things
which would show the morals of the women of Philadelphia to be very compt.
[compromised]. I doubt and tell him if any foreigner had told me such things
in europe I would not have believed it."
Senator Morris had just come to the City of Washington from a stint as US
minister to France and obviously was catching up on the gossip generated in
the former US capital. Jonathan Dayton represented New Jersey. Both gentlemen
can be listed as "Founding Fathers." Anyway, what is meant by "the women of
Philadelphia"? Did Dayton tell tales on, say, Mrs. Bingham, and Morris cloak
her in anonymity? Or did Dayton relate tales about anonymous women which
shocked Morris as being more immoral than tales told of anonymous women in
London and Paris?
On the other hand, in Philadelphia in the 1790s, Talleyrand visited, walk
about town with, and impregnated a mulatto woman, and evidently supported the
child and mother to his dying day, to the admiration of a Quaker merchant
like Thomas Cope.
Gail also wrote "Anonymity in Monticello or anyplace in 18th century Virginia
just doesn't fit in with the typical available living arrangements."
Chief Justice John Marshall was one elite Virginia politician who was often
not recognized in Virginia. There are stories about him being at a hotel and
summoned by arriving gentlemen and instructed to carry their luggage.
As for Mary Chestnut's diary, it is unfortunate that a woman of such
perspicacity did not live and write in gossip-distance of Monticello. I would
argue that if the offspring of master-slave relationships were so well known
back in antebellum days, we wouldn't be in the midst of these ongoing debates
about Jefferson and Hemings.
Finally, I don't suggest that Jefferson was unknown on his own plantation. I
was wondering if gentlemen of that time compartmentalized sex outside of
marriage as a kind of generic tonic, which would account for why Jefferson
who thought so much of the offsprings of his minds, thought so little of the
offsprings of his loins.
Bob Arnebeck
___________________________________________________________________
From: "theo van der meer" <1vandermeer@planet.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] cunnilingus
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 22:42:45 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cristina Nelson" <crn@alum.mit.edu>
To: <histsex@listbot.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: [histsex] cunnilingus
> This is not at all my area of expertise (my work is on US women's
> undergarments 1940-70) but I seem to recall from my readings that while
> some authorities argued that female-female or male-to-female cunnilingus
> did not enter sexual practice till the early 20th C, one authority
> documented female-female oral sex in a (Dutch?) convent in the 15th C.
>> Since I have recently moved, I doubt I can easily get my hands on the last
> source.
>> Just adding to the stew,> Cristina Nelson
I would not know about a Dutch 15th C. convent, but in an article I
published in 1991 I did mention a case of two women arrested in 1797 or 98
in Amsterdam who had engaged in cunnilingus. See my "Tribades on Trial.
Female same-sex offenders in late eighteenth century Amsterdam," in Journal
of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, no 3, 1991, pp. 424-445. Repr. in John
Fout (ed.), Forbidden History. The State, Society and the Regulation of
Sexuality in Modern Europe, Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press,
1992, pp. 189-210.
It's mind boggling sometimes: unlike their male counterparts they were
definately lower class.
Theo van der Meer
ot.com
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:16:04 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
>Jack Kolb writes:
>"Nonsense, Rictor. Men and women regularly immersed themselves--in
>rivers, streams, and other bodies of water. This is what "bathing" meant,
>well into the 19th century."
>>Yes, Jack, you're right about "bathing", but Samuel Pepys and Dr Johnson
>did NOT run down to the Fleet ditch every morning with soap and towel in hand!
>>On mature reflection I realize that London had its "bath houses" and "hot
>houses" (sort of saunas, often "stews" of ill repute). Elizabeth Pepys
>once went to one and felt so virtuously clean that that night she wouldn't
>let Samuel get into bed with her until he "cleaned himself with warm
>water". Information courtesy of Liza Picard's amusing books on
>_Restoration London_ and _Dr Johnson's London_.
>>--
>Rictor Norton, London
><mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
>http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek, Rictor; I should have indicated
that more clearly, and certainly added that bathing in some of England's
streams and rivers might make the bather dirtier than he/she had been
before. Cheers, Jack.
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Philip Stokes" <Philip.Stokes@btinternet.com>
Subject: [histsex] Anthropology or pornogaphy?
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:26:19 +0100
Lesley's project is fascinating. Quickly, in passing - as I almost always
seem to be - I'd like to point to the work and collections of Arthur Munby
[associated with Hannah Cullwick] which are conveniently summarised in
Michael Hiley's book "Victorian Working Women: portraits from life" [London:
Gordon Fraser, 1979]. And if you can get it, look at Alain Fleig's "Reves de
Papier: la photographie orientaliste 1860-1914" [Neuchatel: Editions Ides et
Calendes, 1997]. There's a lot on the interface between the erotic & the
anthropological. And perhaps "Nudes of All Nations" Anon? [London: Routledge
& Sons, 1936] with an amusingly straight-faced foreword that seeks to assure
us of the editor's seriousness, and presumably, virtue.
Do keep us in touch Lesley!
Philip Stokes
philip.stokes@btinternet.com
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:25:06 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: [histsex] Fwd: [OscarWilde] The Observer on unpublished witness
statements
[more on the Wilde court documents, from the Oscar Wilde list. JK]
Subject: [OscarWilde] ARTICLE - The Observer on unpublished witness statements
>Wilde's sex life exposed in explicit court files: Under the hammer:
>unpublished witness statements tell of 'rough' teenage boys and soiled sheets
>VANESSA THORPE AND SIMON DE BURTON
>
>05/06/2001
>The Observer
>Page 12
>EXPLICIT documents prepared for the Oscar Wilde libel case have come to
>light, offering a revealing new glimpse of the double life led by the
>celebrated Irish writer.
>
>The shocking witness statements, previously unseen, were drawn up by
>employees at Day Russell of the Strand, solicitors for the defence in
>Wilde's disastrous 1895 legal action against the Marquis of Queensberry.
>Most of the papers were filed away and never used in court.
>
>While Wilde is remembered today as the dandy-about-town, sporting bespoke
>suits and habitually wearing a green carnation in his buttonhole, these
>statements - from chamber-maids, valets, bell-boys and even a lamp-wick
>seller portray his private life in lurid detail.
>
>Seedy descriptions of Wilde's bedroom are included in the damaging file,
>which was instrumental in Wilde's downfall and formed the background for
>one of the most famous cases in British legal history.
>
>Wilde took legal action against the Marquis, father of his lover, Lord
>Alfred Douglas, after he found a visiting card left by Queensberry at the
>Albermarle club. It was inscribed with the words: 'For Oscar Wilde posing
>Somdomite [ sic ]'.
>
>The 52 pages of statements from 32 witnesses have never been published and
>are hand-written on heavy sheets of paper. They were picked up in a London
>junk shop for a pittance during the Fifties by a private collector whose
>widow is now selling them at Christie's on 6 June. The historic bundle,
>wrapped in pink string, is expected to fetch pounds 12,000.
>
>Among the more sordid details are those revealed by Margaret Cotta, a
>chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, a favourite rendezvous for Wilde and his
>series of young male 'renters'. Describing a prolonged visit to the hotel
>by Wilde and Alfred Douglas, who was affectionately known as Bosie, Miss
>Cotta said she found a 'common boy, rough looking, about 14 years of age'
>in Wilde's bed, the sheets of which 'were always in a most disgusting
>state. . . [with] traces of vaseline, soil and semen'.
>
>Instructions were given that the linen should be kept apart and washed
>separately. Miss Cotta added that a stream of page boys delivering letters
>were usually kissed by Wilde, who then tipped them two shillings and
>sixpence for their trouble.
>
>Thomas Venning, a manuscripts specialist at Christie's, said the documents
>provided a new account of Wilde's undoing and had 'very detailed sexual
>content which was only mentioned in the trial euphemistically'.
>
>The statements also show Wilde's carefree attitude to discovery. Wallis
>Grainger, an apprentice electrician from Oxford, told how Wilde took him to
>a cottage in nearby Goring-on-Thames which he had rented and where he wrote
>An Ideal Husband
>
>On the second or third night, said Grainger, Wilde 'came into my bedroom
>and woke me up and told me to come into his bedroom which was next door. .
>. he worked me up with his hand and made me spend in his mouth'. The former
>butler of the Marquis of Queensberry was in the next room.
>
>On another occasion, during the Goring regatta, Gertrude Simmons, governess
>to Wilde's two sons, reported seeing him 'holding the arm of a boat boy
>called George Hughes and patting him very familiarly'. During the same
>visit she came across a carelessly discarded letter to Wilde from Bosie
>which was signed 'your own loving darling boy to do what you like with'.
>
>Another statement came from a 20-year-old called Fred Atkins, who Wilde had
>met at the Cafe Royale. Atkins said Wilde 'took me to the hairdresser and
>had my hair curled'. Wilde later took him off to Paris as his secretary,
>Atkins said. The job involved 'writing out only half a page of a manuscript
>which took about 10 minutes' after which Wilde 'made improper proposals'.
>
>Queensberry had used detectives to track down a circle of male prostitutes,
>and some of their statements are among those being sold. Wilde's action
>against Queensberry opened on 3 April 1895 at the Old Bailey but collapsed
>with a not guilty verdict. At noon on 5 April, the evidence gathered by
>solicitor Charles Russell was immediately forwarded to the Director of
>Public Prosecutions and Wilde was arrested on a charge of gross indecency.
>
>On 24 May, after two further trials, he was sentenced to two years'
>imprisonment with hard labour, which broke his health. After his release he
>lived abroad as a bankrupt under the pseudonym Sebastian Melmoth. He died
>in Paris on 30 November 1900.
___________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:30:29 -0500
From: "Michael J. Murphy" <mjmurphy@artsci.wustl.edu>
One intriguing question raised by commercial studio images of naked women
vs. anthropological nudes is why the former is not considered
anthropological? Seems it depends solely on your point of view. Most
commercial images of nude women in the nineteenth century were French
produced porn and are rightly thought of as a stimulus to sexual
pleasure. But that pleasure was intertwined with the 'othering' aspect of
the photograph which silences the subject as it reduces her to a visible
surface; offers her as a physical specimen within the normalizng visual
field of the rectangular photograph with its Cartesian representation of
space; establishes the viewer in the role of voyeur of a subject who
cannot possibly 'discover' the hidden viewer's transgression. I would not
want to argue that every picture of a nude subject functions as
pornography; that's a question which must be decided on the historical
context of the photo. However, photography does represent an enormously
impacted structure of power relations often shot-through with the sexual
even when the sexual is superficially absent. On the commercial
production of female nude photography in the nineteenth century see Lynda
Nead's book on The Female Nude.
Also, we should not forget that the better known anthropological and
anthropometrical images of the colonized 'native' and 'indigene' were
paralleled by photographic studies of physical types in Europe and the
US; a strain of thought put to notorious use in Nazi Germany. Native
Americans and 'street arabs' were frequent subjects of documentary
photography, but more surprising are the studies of the racial types of
the British Isles, for instance. It was VERY common for bourgeois women
in Europe and the US to maintain photographic albums of physical types
with which they would entertain gentlemen callers.
For an excellent introduction to the topic of type and photograph you
should see Alan Sekula's article "The Body and the Archive" originally
published in October but anthologized in a number of volumes. In the same
Foucauldian vein see John Tagg's book "The Burden of Representation."
Also Elizabeth Edwards of the Pitt Rivers Musuem edited a great volume on
anthropology and photography with a number of pertinent essays; see also
the number of journals addressing what has come to be know as visual
anthropology. And see the book "Reading National Geographic" which has a
chapter dedicated to photographs of the non-Western other which reviews
the relevant literature and makes some useful claims. Books are currently
in boxes so I can't proved a full cite.
___________________________________________________________________From: DrkHeavenX@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:25:51 EDT
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Greetings and salutations....
As a 'lurker' on this list, I finally have a question for anyone who can
answer it, regarding this thread on oral sex in Europe. Forgive me if I come
to any ridiculous conclusions....
First off, it seems to me that anyone engaging in the sex act would
eventually figure out that oral sex brings pleasure. Obviously, the church
had a major impact on societal behaviour, but throughout history, people have
always paid a certain amount of lip service to what the church wanted, and
then done as they pleased behind closed doors. It seems a matter of pure
logic that people would engage in 'forbidden' sex acts, when they knew there
was no way they were going to get caught. Perhaps that's why there is scant
mention of it anywhere.
Keeping that in mind, it also seems logical to me that it would be more of a
male supreme situation, too. From the research I have done, most men were not
exactly concerned about giving their partners sexual pleasure (although,
wasn't it mentioned by a doctor in the 18th or 19th century that women who
climaxed conceived more easily?). So, it seems to me that perhaps men were
getting a lot more of the oral sex...but there have to have been exceptions.
Being that there are men now that profess to enjoy giving oral sex, wouldn't
that have been the case then as well?
I also wonder if there was any influence on sexual practices because of the
Asian and Middle Eastern trade situations. In my experience, older eastern
culture was far more open about sexual practices, especially those the
western church deemed as forbidden or 'bad'. Could exposure to those societal
differences have influenced Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries? I am
honestly unaware of how much people intermingled due to trade, so it's merely
a question of conjecture here.
I wonder as well if the fact that men tended to be rather absent creatures
in the household, especially during times of civil unrest and foreign wars
influenced women to start experimenting together, and if perhaps it's just
not recorded because of how 'evil' it would be regarded by both society and
the church.
Wouldn't there have had to be some men that took pride in their sexual
prowess? Men than enjoying pleasuring women? At the risk of sounding coarse
here, many women actually prefer oral sex to intercourse....men had to have
figured that out, it seems to me.
Forgive any overly generalized questions and leaps of faith in this little
question...but I wonder just how much was left unsaid, and unwritten. It
seems to me that there was likely to have been a lot more going on than what
was recorded....any thoughts?
Cheers,
Amy Forsyth
___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:38:15 -0700
From: "Dr. David Hersh" <Dr_Sex@netidea.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
At 12:25 PM 5/3/2001 -0400, Amy Forsyth wrote:
>First off, it seems to me that anyone engaging in the sex act would
>eventually figure out that oral sex brings pleasure.
True fact, and even from preliterate, time immemorial.
David Hersh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David S. Hersh, Ed.D., FAACS
Clinical Sexologist
http://Doctor-Sex.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:58:33 -0400
From: "Roberto C. Ferrari" <rferrari@fau.edu>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
With the discussion going on regarding oral sex, primarily male-male, I
find it fascinating to hear about not only the different receptions to it
through time and through various cultures. Interestingly, it seems we keep
assuming that "oral sex" refers to oral-genital contact. But is this the
case? It's interesting to note that no one seems to have mentioned rimming
(again, perhaps focusing on male-male sexuality, but maybe not?). Perhaps
this would be another avenue of discussion that might prove
informative. Is rimming considered a 'modern' sex act? Are its
participants mostly American, its influence again coming from the gay porn
industry? Are there any legal treatises that discuss it historically, or
would it too have been considered a form of sodomy? If rimming is a modern
sex act, perhaps it should be examined for its transference through various
cultures, thereby creating an historical and ethno-cultural corollary to
other non-procreative sex acts such as oral-genital sex.
-- Roberto
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:07:24 +0100
Jack writes:
"I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek"
And so was I -- as is appropriate to the subject of this thread . . . .
--
Rictor Norton, London
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Pablo Ben" <benpablo@hotmail.com>
Subject: [histsex] on the personal and the political
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:52:11 -0000
Dear Hera
I am really glad for your response. Respecting the lack of personal
references in academia, I think it is a problem that had to be thought a
little more, as I think with feminism that the personal is political. I
recently was in the States for the first time and I was very surprised to
observe that there is a very strong lesbian and gay liberation movement and
feminism is huge but there is a very conservative culture respecting the
body, affections, and personal contact. I think puritanism has a very strong
legacy in this sense. I am a little afraid about that as in some months I
will be going to further my studies in the University of Chicago. I hope to
find a place in a culture so liberated and so conservative, in some senses
which are very deeply diferent from my own culture.
Thanks a lot.
pablo
___________________________________________________________________
From: "theo van der meer" <1vandermeer@planet.nl>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:27:31 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Greenberg" <david.greenberg@nyu.edu>
To: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex@listbot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
> These remarks of Theo are very interesting. I will have to check to see
>> whether Kinsey found similar class differences. Theo, I wonder whether
>> you have any ideas as to why these class differences should have
>> existed? Could it be that hygiene was better in the aristocracy? David
>> Greenberg
I would not have an immediate answer to that David, although I do not think
hygiene had much to do with it, at least not if we assume that upper classes
bathed more than lower classes: it were the upperclass men that sucked
lower class men. I just saw that Gert Hekma made some interesting comments
on the issue of hygiene as well. To understand the class issue it might be
an idea to look at traditions of upperclass libertinism. It somehow seems to
fit in there.
Furtermore on the subject of hygiene: During the time I did research on the
early modern period I began to sense that cleanliness could be or often was
aspired by people at the time, not for the sake of hygiene (per se), but for
the sake of honor. Whether that would or would not involve bathing I don't
know, but to wear a clean shirt was the last boundery between honor and
dishonor: even people who were to be scaffolded in ceremonies that were
meant to strip them of their honor were often granted that last boundery and
got a clean shirt.
Oh by the way, Rictor Norton was right about the variety of people being
prosecuted in 18th C. Holland. I stand corrected. Not surprisingly upper
class and upper middle class men escaped prosecution.
Theo
>
___________________________________________________________________From: "Thomas, Julie Lynn" <julthoma@indiana.edu>
Subject: [histsex] Russian research question
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:05:53 -0500
I know there are at least a handful of you who have conducted research on
sexology in Russia... To that end, I have a logistical question.
I will be in Moscow from September through December 2001. While I intend to
devote a majority of my research time at GA RF (the Health Commissariat
files, 1920 - 1935), I was planning on collecting some material from the
Lenin Library (journals relating to sexuality, specialized texts and
mainstream women's magazines - with the 1920- 1935 timeframe in mind). The
repairs which have closed the Lenin Library will not be completed by
September, as previously announced. It won't reopen before December 2001.
Here's my question: Can anyone recommend libraries / sources in Moscow for
the kind of literature I'm seeking?
Thank you!
Julie L. Thomas
Visiting Lecturer
Gender Studies
Indiana University, Bloomington
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:48:28 -0400
From: fxxm <fxxm@aspma.com>
Subject: [histsex] oral sex and the penitentials
Found a comment in Pierre Payer's "Sex And The Penitentials: The
Development Of A Sexual Code, 550-1150" (1984), pertinent to the thread
on oral sex.
--Phil Milstein
Boston
-----------------
There are frequent references in the penitentials to oral sex, most of
them relating to homosexual practices. There is a canon in Theodore
which may refer to heterosexual oral sex, but the reference is certainly
not clear, particularly when one considers that the canon appears under
the heading "On fornication" and not under "On the penances of the
married in particular" or "On questions relating to spouses." Derrick
Bailey in his study of homosexuality understands Theodore's canon to
refer to homosexual fellatio, while Noonan in his study of contraception
seems to understand the same canon in reference to heterosexual oral
intercourse. There is perhaps no way of settling the question, but the
context argues for its homosexual interpretation.*
[*"Qui semen in os miserit VII annos paeniteat. Hoc pessimum malum.
Alias ab eo aliter iudicatum est ut ambo usque in finem vitae peniteant
vel XV annos vel ut superius VII" Canons of Theodore U 1.2.15 (Finst
291). "Whoever emits semen into the mouth shall do penance for seven
years; this is the worst of evils. It has also been judged otherwise by
him, namely, that both shall do penance to the end of their lives, or
for fifteen years, or for seven years as above." See Bailey
"Homosexuality" 105, and Noonan "Contraception" 164.]
This canon, which is repeated with some modification by the Excarpsus of
Cummean, in the edition of Schmitz seems to refer to the homosexual
relations of natural brothers, which is mentioned in the previous canon.
Neither Egbert nor Bede refers to oral sex. The weight of evidence
suggests that reference to heterosexual oral practices is not to be
found in these early penitentials, nor is it found in the later manuals
except for a canon in the Tripartite of St. Gall, which makes the only
unambiguous reference to a heterosexual oral relation in the Latin
penitentials: "He who emits semen into the mouth of a woman shall do
penance for three years; if they are in the habit they shall do penance
for seven years." Anticipating our discussion of homosexuality, we can
say that while homosexual oral practices were of some concern to the
writers of the penitentials from the time of Vinnian, heterosexual oral
practices were not. Certainly, this would not have been because the
practices themselves were considered less grave but probably because
they were not widespread enough to warrant inclusion in the penitentials.
-----------------
P.S. Does anyone know of Payer's current whereabouts? I would like to
ask him a question about another point he raises in the book.
___________________________________________________________________
From: JNKATZ1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:19:11 EDT
Subject: [histsex] oral sex and slang?
Does any list member have evidence of 19th century or earlier uses of the
phrase "to blow," meaning to practice an oral-genital act on someone?
Charley Shively mentions some suggestive evidence in a letter to Whitman, but
he does not document the sexual useage of the term.
Jonathan Ned Katz
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:57:43 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
> But that [sexual] pleasure [of the commercial female nude
>photograph] was intertwined with the 'othering' aspect of
>the photograph which ... offers her as a physical specimen within
>the normalizng visual
>field of the rectangular photograph with its Cartesian representation of
>space;
Can you explain what you mean by the Cartesian representation of space?
>establishes the viewer in the role of voyeur of a subject who
>cannot possibly 'discover' the hidden viewer's transgression.
Can you explain what you mean by the above? Who is the "hidden
viewer"? The spectator in front of the photograph? Why
transgression? In what sense?
With thanks, Bob
___________________________________________________________________From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:27:56 +0100
On the subject of rimming, I think it's mentioned by Martial (who also =
mentions cunnilingus and almost anything else you can think of).
The trials of the Templars do seem to record the practice of oral-anal =
sex, but there are arguments over how much of the evidence was =
fabricated by the prosecutors/persecutors, and there are problems over =
interpreting "the Kiss of Baphomet" as a sexual act rather than a =
religious ritual. I don't think there's much else in the historical =
record of actual sexual behaviour, but there are lots of jokes and =
insults in medieval popular literature turning on the phrase "Come kiss =
my arse!" and some amusing stories about kissing the fundament when =
something else was expected, in Chaucer and Boccaccio. When it is =
treated seriously, it is associated with sodomy (and heresy).
In the first English vernacular mystery play, _The Killing of Abel_ =
(1450), Cain is more or less portrayed as having a homosexual =
relationship with both the Devil and his boy/servant Garcio, and he =
seems to want the same relationship with his brother Abel, to whom he =
says: "Com kis myn ars, me list not ban, / ... / Com nar, and other =
drife or hald, / And kys the dwillis toute! / Go gres thi shepe under =
the toute, / For that is the most lefe" ("Come kiss my arse, I won't =
curse. ... Come near and kiss the devil's buttocks! Go grease your sheep =
under their buttocks, for that is most dear to you.") These lines are =
omitted from most modern editions of the text.
--
Rictor Norton, London
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:50:57 +0100
From: "Peter Bartlett" <Peter.Bartlett@nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] European oral sex
In all the discussion of who was sucking whom, we have lost one of the threads which Theo
introduced - that the conception of active and passive has reversed over time (it would seem not
necessarily at precisely the same time in all places)? It does seem to me that this ought to be
some sort of marker for our understanding of sexuality between men, at least (and interestingly,
we haven't noticed or discussed whether a similar change occurs in heterosexual oral sex), but
I'm not quite sure what the change is.
Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Is it, for example, a marker of a re-articulation of gay
male sex in a heterosexual paradigm, where active equals male and male means penetrating? Are
there other similar markers of changed perception of gay sex in the same sort of way?
Stumped but curious -
peter
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:41:59 +0100 (BST)
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20O'Rourke?=" <tranquilised_icon@yahoo.com>
Subject: [histsex] Byron and disability
Dear listmembers,
I have been working on how queerness and disability
converge on the same axis ( particularly in the
letters of Pope and Swift) and it occured to me that
while critics and biographers are quite comfortable
with talking about Lord Byron's sexuality they are
less so when it comes to discussing his club foot. I
wonder could anybody direct me to any recent work that
does address Byron's disabilty (preferably alongside
his sexuality) or perhaps any (recent)
psychopathological studies of Byron.
Many thanks in advance,
Michael O'Rourke, UCD.
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:35:12 +0100
From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Hi,
George Ryley Scott who wrote popular sex books in the 20th century - from birth control
advice to books on flagellation. He was a member of the Royal Anthropological Society. If
anyone doing research related to the society has come across any mentions of him I would be
grateful if they would pass them on to me.
Thanks
Hera
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________From: "Brian Dempsey" <editor@scolag.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [histsex] Royal Society of Anthropology
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:21:13 +0100
I quite agree with Hera that those who falsify history by promoting their
arrogant assumptions or their crass ignorance as valid "research" do us all
a disservice.
We all know those who promote their work as "British history" when they
really mean English history, thereby falsifying the historical record and
making invisible certain generally marginalised groups, are amongst the
worst offenders. Most people on this list who are based in England are
intelligent enough to be conscious of the issue.
Hera has highlighted this problem on more than one occasion.
Lesley has pointed to the crass and anti-academic habit of thinking that
"Britain" is a synonym for England and Wales and, I am sure, she would never
refer to flawed research based on such ignorance as, say, "excellent". That
would be backward gibberish.
This English nationalism or Anglo-centrism is just the same as those who
ignore issues of race, class, gender and so on - simple bigotry. It is good
to know that this list is sensitive to the dangers of accepting ignorant
nationalistic prejudice as "history". If it weren't it would be reduced to
people sharing their prejudices with one another: a reasonable enough
pursuit but hardly the discipline of historical research.
Less ignorance and more careful, critical historical research is, in my
view, what we need. I can always delete messages which are clearly ignorant
of basic realities.
Brian
___________________________________________________________________From: "Philip Stokes" <philip.stokes@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Byron and disability
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:21:44 +0100
Dear Michael,
You may like to look at Benita Eisler's "Byron, Child of Passion, Fool of
Fame." [London: Hamish Hamilton, 1999] While it is a general biog - for my
money the best by some distance in the current crop - Benita has concerned
herself with the issues around Byron's deformity in some detail. However, of
necessity in such a work the writing on these topics is distributed through
the text, and were it not for the quality of the index, it might be too
daunting to attempt to unpick them. But here I recommend it unreservedly,
and admire the quality of the insights made available.
Maybe you should know that I was born with bilateral talipes, eventually
corrected by operation, but with residual disability extending to my early
adulthood. Thus Benita's account of Byron's schooldays, [pp52-3] is like a
replay of my own. It is tempting to associate Byron's and my competitiveness
with our medical histories. Indeed there are some superficial similarities -
Byron's swimming with my extreme walking, mountaineering and survival, for
instance. But there are any number of precedents for the other aspects of my
character in the previous generations of my family, who were thoroughly
robust all their lives, and that makes any attempted close correlation
between myself and Byron via our shared disability look shaky indeed. I
think these things are much too multicausal for simple equivalence; in any
case I have a strong inclination towards seeking answers in inheritance,
before environment, which though it may be close in influence, seems to me
to lie second most of the time.
Regards,
Philip Stokes
philip.stokes@btinternet.com
___________________________________________________________________Date: 5 May 2001 15:33:10 -0000
From: "dick gifford" <dickgifford@2hb.net>
Subject: Re:[histsex] oral sex and slang?
On Thu, 3 May 2001 23:19:11 EDT JNKATZ1@aol.com 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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Does any list member have evidence of 19th century or earlier uses of the
>phrase "to blow," meaning to practice an oral-genital act on someone?
>>Charley Shively mentions some suggestive evidence in a letter to Whitman, but
>he does not document the sexual useage of the term.
>>Jonathan Ned Katz
Hi Jonathan,
As early adolescents (c.1960) we got the impression that being offered a blow job was a scam. We were told by an older boy that if we blew air up the channel of our penises we'd get a real good feeling when it came back out. A buddy of mine tried to do this with a straw. This didn't work; and, being a "wise guy", he told this older teen to his face that it didn't work. "Well, actually you've got to get someone else to do it for you," was the response. And, since wise guys are sometimes curious guys in a very mischievous way....
This was next door to Lynn, Massachusetts, a city well-known at that as having a large gay
community.
Regards,
Dick.
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:26:56 +0000
From: fxxm <fxxm@aspma.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] oral sex and slang?
> Does any list member have evidence of 19th century or earlier uses of the
> phrase "to blow," meaning to practice an oral-genital act on someone?
> Charley Shively mentions some suggestive evidence in a letter to Whitman, but
> he does not document the sexual useage of the term.
Perhaps the following will help. It seems to disavow
Shiveley's notion of what "blow" might have meant to Whitman
and his friends, but of course not conclusively so. I found
it in Ken Emerson's biography of Stephen Foster, and Emerson
got it from Justin Kaplan's bio of Whitman.
--Phil Milstein
---------------
Walt Whitman was scarcely more charitable when he
anathematized supporters of James Buchanan (and Millard
Fillmore, the Know-Nothing candidate) as
"... spies, blowers, electioneers, body snatchers, bawlers,
bribers, compromisers, runaways, lobbyers, sponges, ruined
sports, expelled gamblers, policy backers, monte dealers,
duelists, carriers of concealed weapons, blind men, deaf
men, pimpled men, scarred inside with the vile disorder,
gaudy outside with gold chains from the people's money and
harlot's money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men,
the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth."
---------------
___________________________________________________________________From: "Peter Boston" <peterboston@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [histsex] oral sex and slang?
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 01:04:47 +1200
As an aside, in early twentieth century New Zealand the slang term for a
male performing oral sex on another man was a 'gobbler'. I don't know if
this was specific to this country. Occasionally references also pop up to
'Gam' presumably a contraction of the French.
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:57:37 +0930
From: Rikki Wilde <rikki.wilde@adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: [histsex] 'Grim Reaper'
Dear Historians and Cultural theorists, Would anyone have a video copy
of the 'Grim Reaper' advertising campaign that was aired on Australian
television in April 1987? Or would any one of you know where I could
obtain a copy. I am a higher degree student at Adelaide University in
Australia, particularly interested in queer subjects. Cheers, Rikki
Wilde.
___________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:25:12 -0500
From: "Michael J. Murphy" <mjmurphy@artsci.wustl.edu>
Bob,
Some thoughts:
>>> But that [sexual] pleasure [of the commercial female nude
>>photograph] was intertwined with the 'othering' aspect of
>>the photograph which ... offers her as a physical specimen within
>>the normalizng visual
>>field of the rectangular photograph with its Cartesian representation of
>>space;
>>Can you explain what you mean by the Cartesian representation of space?
Perhaps I should have typed "Cartesian spatial field" not "representation
of space." By this I mean a visual field which appears arranged from a
single viewing position, centering and privileging the viewer. Cubism,
for instance, does not employ a Cartesian visual field. Cartesian space
is coordinate (i.e. a 3D grid), with overlapping objects perveived as a
sign of depth; differences in size of similar objects is perceived as
distance, etc. One might of course assert that the documentary photograph
merely mimics the natural function of the eye, but photoreception might
be natural but visual perception is cultural. We are tutored in Cartesian
viewing.
>>establishes the viewer in the role of voyeur of a subject who
>>cannot possibly 'discover' the hidden viewer's transgression.
>>Can you explain what you mean by the above? Who is the "hidden
>viewer"? The spectator in front of the photograph? Why
>transgression? In what sense?
Especially documentary photography (and by this I mean scientific
photography, not the 30s New Deal kind of documentary photog.) presents
the subject as a visual object of knowledge; a specimen or type for
study. The viewer of such photographs is analogous to a voyeur; one who
derives sexual pleasure from looking without being seen. Film theorists
fond of psychoanalysis have made much of the viewer at the keyhole. The
absence of the speaking subject signified by the presence of the
photograph virtually ensures the scientific 'voyeur' will not be
'discovered', a fact which surely encourages prolonged looking but
lessens its sexual frisson, yes? There's a fine, always-already crossed
line between, for instance, French pornography and anthropological
'types' of topless French Algeriennes.
Hope this helps,
Mike
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 09:31:50 -0500
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Anthropology or pornography?
> >> But that [sexual] pleasure [of the commercial female nude
> >>photograph] was intertwined with the 'othering' aspect of
> >>the photograph which ... offers her as a physical specimen within
> >>the normalizng visual
> >>field of the rectangular photograph with its Cartesian representation of
> >>space;
> >> >Can you explain what you mean by the Cartesian representation of space?
>Perhaps I should have typed "Cartesian spatial field" not "representation
>of space." By this I mean a visual field which appears arranged from a
>single viewing position, centering and privileging the viewer.....
>Cartesian space
>is coordinate (i.e. a 3D grid), with overlapping objects perveived as a
>sign of depth; differences in size of similar objects is perceived as
>distance, etc. One might of course assert that the documentary photograph
>merely mimics the natural function of the eye,
I always find such assertions confusing ... "the eye" ... how many
human beings have "the eye"? With few exceptions human sight is
binocular in contrast to the monocular camera lens.
>but photoreception might
>be natural but visual perception is cultural. We are tutored in Cartesian
>viewing.
I'm wondering if what you are referring to as Cartesian viewing,
Cartesian space is what I would characterize as Albertian
(Renaissance) space .... Perhaps you could offer some bibliography
to enlighten me?
> >>establishes the viewer in the role of voyeur of a subject who
> >>cannot possibly 'discover' the hidden viewer's transgression.
> >> >Can you explain what you mean by the above? Who is the "hidden
> >viewer"? The spectator in front of the photograph? Why
> >transgression? In what sense?
>Especially documentary photography (and by this I mean scientific
>photography, not the 30s New Deal kind of documentary photog.) presents
>the subject as a visual object of knowledge; a specimen or type for
>study.
I was under the impression you were referring to commercial
photographs of the female nude. Do these constitute documentary,
scientific photography? Are anthroplogical photographs
"documentary," "scientific"?
>The viewer of such photographs is analogous to a voyeur;
Only scientific photographs? Or anthropological photographs? Or both?
>one who
>derives sexual pleasure from looking without being seen.
I don't understand. Are commercial photographs of the female nude
the same as documentary, scientific photographs of the female nude?
Or are you referring to anthropological photographs of (partially)
naked females?
>Film theorists
>fond of psychoanalysis have made much of the viewer at the keyhole.
Oh, I believe in _Being and Nothingness_ Jean-Paul Sartre has
something to say about that considerably earlier ... as does Marcel
Duchamp in a non-textual format in _Etant donnes_
>The
>absence of the speaking subject signified by the presence of the
>photograph virtually ensures the scientific 'voyeur' will not be
>'discovered', a fact which surely encourages prolonged looking but
>lessens its sexual frisson, yes?
What about the sexual frisson of being caught in the act/discovered
during prolonged looking? And again is this "scientific 'voyeur'"
the viewer of "anthropological" photographs of (partially) naked
females?
>There's a fine, always-already crossed
>line between, for instance, French pornography and anthropological
>'types' of topless French Algeriennes.
IC ... anthropological topless "types" are documentary, scientific
... therefore prolonged looking by the scientific voyeur is "safer"
if less sexual than prolonged looking of porn?
With thanks for an interesting exchange ....
___________________________________________________________________Mon, 07 May 2001 19:47:39 GMT
From: "clair scrine" <cscrine@hotmail.com>
Subject: [histsex] Old Maids Mania
Dear List Servers, I am hoping that some of you out there may be able to
direct me to any references you know of in the British medical literature
(although doesn't have to be), regarding nineteenth century attitudes
towards, cases of, conceptions of (etc) "anomalous" sexual desire in
menopausal women. I am aware of William Tyler-Smith's work, and J.B Hicks
attitudes who both seem to suggest that such women were either liable to go
astray in regards to their sexual desire, or shouldn't really have any in
the first place - now that their child bearing years were over. If anybody
can help with this or has more to say on it I would be most appreciative -
Regards, Clair Scrine
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:40:02 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: [histsex] Fwd: [OscarWilde] New Wilde Trial Dossier
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
>From: royeaux@aol.com
>Subject: [OscarWilde] New Wilde Trial Dossier
>To: oscarwilde@yahoogroups.com
>>Posted for academic purposes from The Times, London, May 7th, 2001:
>>Wilde Dossier Spells Out His Lurid Affairs by Paul McCann, Media
>Correspondent.
>>A sheaf of explicit witness statements intended for the Oscar Wilde libel
>trial have come to light in London. The statements, which illustrate how
>openly Wilde conducted his homosexual affairs, were gathered by Day Russell
>of the Strand, solicitors for the defence in Wilde's failed prosecution of
>the Marquis of Queensberry for libel in 1895.
>>The 52 pages of statements from 32 witnesses, most of which were never used
>in the trial and have never been on public view, are meticulously handwritten
>on heavy sheets of paper held together with pink string. They were bought in
>a London junk shop for a pittance during the 1950s by a collector whose widow
>is now selling them at a Christie's manuscript sale on June 6. The statements
>are expected to fetch up to ú12,000.
>>Most damaging of the details in the statements are those from Margaret Cotta,
>a chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, a favourite rendezvous of Wilde. Describing
>a prolonged visit to the hotel by Wilde and his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas,
>Queensberry's son, Miss Cotta said she once found a "common boy,
>rough-looking, about 14 years of age" in Wilde's bed. The sheets "were
>always in a most disgusting state." The linen was apparently so unsavoury
>that it was kept apart from that of the other guests and washed separately.
>Miss Cotta said page boys delivering letters were kissed by Wilde, who then
>tipped them 2s 6d.
>>During the Goring-on-Thames regatta Gertrude Simmons, governess to Wilde's
>two sons, saw him "holding the arm of a boat boy called George Hughes and
>patting him very familiarly."
>>Other statements came from youths picked up by Wilde, including a lamp-wick
>seller, a theatrical extra, valets and Fred Atkins, a 20-year-old man whom
>the playwright met at the Cafe Royal.
>>Atkins said Wilde "took me to the hairdresser and had my hair curled" and
>later took him to Paris, ostensibly to employ him as his secretary, which
>involved "writing out only half a page of a manuscript which took about ten
>minutes" after which Wilde "made improper proposals."
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:19:41 +0100
From: Paula <fa1912@wlv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Old Maids Mania
Contact Marie-Clare Balaam at the University of Wolverhampton who is
writing up her PhD research on menopausal women in general
Paula
___________________________________________________________________From: "Philip Stokes" <philip.stokes@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] oral sex and slang?
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:39:08 +0100
In the early 50s I was staying with an aunt who lived at Sudbourne, Suffolk.
This was an area where there were many US airbases, and consequently
American personnel who sometimes rented houses.
My aunt and I were out walking, and passed a house with the name "Gobblecock
Hall" inscribed on a large board by the gate. Aunt was delighted at this,
exclaiming with joy that the Americans should have brought back with them so
many of the English usages of their emigrant forefathers; for how many
modern English people still knew the old name for a turkey?
Well, a dictionary bears her out, up to a point, but I didn't feel inclined
then - nor in regard to that particular lady would I feel now - inclined to
debate the etymological alternative which then and now I feel to be the more
probable, though fellatious alternative.
Regards,
Philip Stokes
philip.stokes@btinternet.com
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 12:34:24 -0700
From: "Dr. David Hersh" <Dr_Sex@netidea.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] oral sex and slang?
Just to add a word to this thread...
Irrumation = mouth fucking as opposed to fellatio (cock sucking) as cited in:
Legman, G. (1979) Oragentalism: Oral techniques in genital excitation.
Published by Bell Publishing Co. a division of Crown Publishers, Inc. (No
city given).
Thank you Charles Moser for the citation.
David Hersh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David S. Hersh, Ed.D., FAACS
Clinical Sexologist
http://Doctor-Sex.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: [histsex] Book announcement
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 20:26:21 +0100
I have been asked to pass on the following information: as the book seems
likely to be of interest to members of the list, I am therefore doing so:
Pickering & Chatto are proud to announce the forthcoming release of
Eighteenth-Century British Erotica in April 2002. This is a collection of
primary texts representing the rich fund of social and literary data from
the period. More information on this title can be found at
www.pickeringchatto.com/erotica
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:42:37 -0500
From: jahouck@facstaff.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: [histsex] Old Maids Mania
I am finishing a manuscript on menopause in America (1897-1980) and I have
found a great deal of anxiety about "aberrent" sexuality thoughout this time
period. If you are interested in more detail, let me know.
And now that I've entered the discussion, I suppose I should introduce
myself. I am Judy Houck, serving as a postdoc at the University of
Wisconsin--Madison. My manuscript is a revision of my doctoral dissertation
on the popular, medical, and personal views of menopause during the
twentieth century.
As you might imagine, finding first-person accounts of menopause,
particularly for the period between 1900 and 1950 are very hard to find, and
I am always on the look out. If anyone runs across one and are willing to
share, I would be grateful.
Judy Houck
___________________________________________________________________
From: Lesley Hall <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [histsex] Old Maids Mania
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:16:01 GMT
I have a recollection that this is discussed, though
perhaps somewhat obliquely, in the chapter of Mary
Poovey's _Uneven Developments_ which deals with
medical attitudes to the introduction of the speculum.
There was one doctor in particular (?Brudenell Carter)
who went on about women of a certain age demanding
speculum examinations. Think this whol debate may also
be dealt with in Ornella Moscucci's _The Science of
Woman_
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:19:39 +0000
From: Dr Crozier <ucgacro@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: [histsex] an old question... james kiernan ref
Sorry to bore the list with this, again, but a few months ago I posted a
question about locating a source by James Kiernan in the journal _Medicine_
(and there are millions of journals by that name inthelate 19th C).
Somebody sent me a really useful answer: exactly which library it was in
and how to order it on ILL. And I sent this to my librarian here, and then
I deleted it from my inbox, and then when I asked a few months later if
there was any nerw: it was missing. She does not have my email (for
whatever reason), and nor do I. A comedy of errors, indeed.
I have spent about half an hour reading through old emails to this list,
and cannot find it anywhere (but saw a whole batch of other stuff posted:
glad this is archived!). Nevertheless, I still cannot get an article by
Kiernan on Algophily, and I am DESPERATE for it now.
Would the kind person who saved me last time please save me again... 'Once
more unto the breach, dear friends'
Cheerio, Ivan
Ivan Crozier,
Research Fellow
Wellcome Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL
24 Eversholt St
London
NW1 2AD
email: 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] Accommodation in Cambridge Mass, this summer
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:00:20 GMT
Person wanted interested in renting a flat in
Cambridge Mass (walking distance to all libraries,
easy public transport into Boston), from now, until
end of September. Suit single person, couple or 2
sharers. 1750USD per month inc utilities. Please
contact Estelle Cohen, e.cohen@ucl.ac.uk , directly
please.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:28:55 EDT
Subject: [histsex] Spain and homosexuality
Hi folks
A request on behalf of another. Does anyone happen to know what the legal
position of male homosexuals was in Spain in the years immediately before
Franco and under Franco? Was there any statute law? Or did Church law cover
it? And in either case, what constituted a crime and what punishments could
be handed out?
Thanking you :)
Chris White
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:59:22 +0200
From: Hildur Kalman <hildur@fil.uit.no>
Subject: [histsex] question on abortions 1885
In the film "Topsy-Turvy" (1999), directed by Mike Leigh, the mistress of
composer Sullivan lets him know that she is pregnant (again), to which he
replies that he will "make the necessary arrangements". She replies "oh no,
I couldn't go through that again". Ones first guess is that she will keep
the baby, but then she continues, saying something about taking care of it
herself, or making arrangements of her own -- and then she laughs and says
a trifle triumphantly "after all, it's 1885!"
This scene puzzles me. An obvious feature of the film is that they seem to
have put a lot of work into research - to make the time of 1880' in London
come out right. So I can't believe the conversation above, with it's
concluding remark, to be accidental. There is a point, but which one is it?
Had a new method of abortion been invented?
Was there a change in the laws, or of how these were observed, so that e.g.
an abortion made by a physician was more possible to attain?
Or what?
I would be happy if one of you historians on this list can give me, a
movie-going philosopher, an answer!
********************
Hildur Kalman, PhD
SV-fak.
Dept. of Philosophy
Kjaerbrygga
Sndre Tollbugate 7B
NO-9008 Troms
Norway
e-mail:<hildur@fil.uit.no>
___________________________________________________________________
From: Mal123nash@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 05:34:48 EDT
Subject: [histsex] First Gay Activist (Ulrichs) honored in birthplace
Hi All!
This bit of news came recently from the Hildesheim Circle of Gay Friends.
By unanimous vote, the city council of Aurich in East Friesland ( in
northeasternmost Germany) decided to name a street after Ulrichs, the first
known Gay activist. Ulrichs was born near Aurich in 1825.
In 1998, the folks in Munich officially opened Karl-Heinrich-Ulrichs-Platz, a
charming square in Munich's Gay district.
Last year, Wolfram Setz, of the Munich Ulrichs Committee, spoke about Ulrichs
at a speech held in Aurich. Recently, the Honorable Hans-Michael Goldmann of
the German parliament proposed the streetnaming to the Aurich city
councilmembers, who gave their immediate approval.
Three cheers for Aurich!
Michael (Lombardi-Nash) (and Paul)
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
___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:11:04 +0100
From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [histsex] question on abortions 1885
Hi,
I haven't seen the film but - She may be talking about being an independent woman and acting
on her own behalf rather than changes in ab