HISTSEX ARCHIVES: JUNE 1999
© Lesley Hall and list contributors
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. G. McLaren" <amclaren@UVic.CA>
Subject: introduction and new books
I'm new to the list and thought I would give a brief description of my
interests. My most recent book Twentieth-Century Sexuality: A History is
being brought out this month by Blackwell (h. 0-631-20812-7; pb.
0-631-20813-5); Chicago University Press is also publishing a paperback
edition of The Trials of Masculinity: Policing Sexual Boundaries,
1870-1930 (Chicaho 1997) 0-226-50068-3.
At the moment I am working on a history of sexual blackmail as related to
homosexuality, abortion and adultery. I have collected a good deal of
information on Britain and a bit on France and Germany. Where I need help
is in tracking down sources on blackmail in the 20th century United
States. Any suggestions?
Angus McLaren
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Buchanan's sexuality
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:25:11 +0100
I refrained from commenting on this earlier, because I was hoping that
Jonathan Katz would offer some comments. But as he hasn't, here is the
substance of what he said in his book _Gay American History_ (1976), p. 647,
and his sources.
The intimate relationship between Senator William Rufus De Vane King and
Buchanan was apparently exploited during an election race to discredit him
as an effeminate queer. Andrew Jackson called him "Miss Nancy"; Aaron Brown
in a letter in 1844 called King Buchanan's "better half", and referred to
their separation as a "divorce", and went on to call King "she", "her" and
"Aunt Fancy". King himself referred to his "communion" with Buchanan in
1844. Katz's source for this seems to be Charles Sellers, _James Polk_,
Princeton University Press, 1966, vol. 2, p. 34.
Preceding Katz, the first discussion of this during our contemporary period
was probably by Lyn Pedersen (probably a pseudonym) in the Editorial in
_One_ magazine, July 1960. I'm not sure what detail he goes into. UCLA might
well have back issues of _One_, and you can check. This editorial was the
source for the entry on Buchanan in Noel I. Garde's (pseud. for Edgar Leoni)
_Jonathan to Gide: The Homosexual in History_ (1964).
Since Katz, according to _The Alyson Almanac_ (1990 edition, p. 101), "the
writer Carl Sferrazza Anthony fueled the debate with his discovery of two
letters to Buchanan by Alabama Senator William Rufus de Vane King, ... One
reads that `I am selfish enough to hope you will not be able to procure an
associate who will cause you to feel no regret at our separation.' " The
_Almanac_ doesn't give a reference for the Carl Sferrazza Anthony discovery.
Perhaps that is covered by the sources mentioned by Jim Miller.
If you locate the letters referred to by Anthony, I'd be quite interested in
hearing more.
--
Rictor Norton
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/rcnorton.htm
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Johnson" <trekdrop78@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Herpes in the 1970s
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 02:50:30 PDT
Dear Lesley,
Hi! My name is Matthew Johnson and I have just joined the list. I am an
undergraduate at New York University and I am preparing my bachelor's thesis
on the history of std prevention among gay men in amsterdam. I don't know
of any british-specific sources, but I would advise you to look in the
american popular press (new york times is good, but especially news
magazines like time and newsweek) for accounts relating to "herpes hysteria"
in the late 1970s. American sources tended to promulgate the view that
herpes, not being curable, would lead to the undoing of the sexual
revolution and a return to more conventional sex practices and relationship
structures. While I know of very litle evidence to indicate this feeling
was true, I do know that the american accounts of the disease had a
tremendous influence on the way the dutch media viewed the illness. if the
american press had this kind of influence elsewhere in europe, it seems
likely that the message would have impacted uk residents as well.
know it's not much but hope it helps.
sincerely,
Matt Johnson
_______________________________________________________________
From: JNKATZ1@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:18:14 EDT
Subject: Buchanan's Sexuality
The most detailed article I know about on Buchanan's and King's relationship
is Carl Sferrazza Anthony's "Was James 'Aunt Fancy' Buchanan Our Gay
President?" The Advocate, #571, Feb. 26, 1991, 50-53. But this has no full
citations. I have tried to contact Anthony to no avail. I have also tried
to get copies of all the letters and documents cited, but have not pursued
this very far. If anyone has, and is willing to share the information,
please let me know. Thanks, Jonathan Ned Katz
jnkatz1@aol.com
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:44:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David F. Greenberg" <dg4@is3.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: The history of the clitoris
Sinistrari, a Roman inquisitor of the early sixteenth century, fantasized
about women with elongated clitorises raping men. - David Greenberg,
Sociology Department, New York University, 269 Mercer
St., Rm. 402, New York, NY 10003
On Mon, 31 May 1999
MillerJimE@aol.com wrote:
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> Perhaps this is more what you are looking for.
> Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women, has a good section on ancient
> medical literature dealing with the clitoris and clitoridectomies to cure
> tribadism (pp 162-171). I don't always agree with her interpretation of the
> texts, but am grateful to her for gathering them together.
> Also, there is a curious epigram by Martial (7.67) in which he
> describes a tribad who penetrates both boys and girls. With what does she
> penetrate them? The epigram does not say, but I think he implies she has a
> penile-like clitoris.
> Jim Miller
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
From: JNKATZ1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:00:11 EDT
Subject: Clitoris
Hope you're including the risque blues songs by Bessie Smith and other
African American women that have lines like "Bush my button, ring my bell."
Many of them appear on one phonograph record dating (I think) to the 1970s.
I have the record someplace. Best, Jonathan
___________________________________________________________________
From: kallberg@sas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Kallberg)
Subject: JHS to Texas?
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
I wonder if any list members know the reasons for JHS changing publishers
from Chicago to Texas?
--
************************************************************************
Jeff Kallberg 215-898-4524 (office; direct)
Department of Music 215-898-7544 (office; secretary)
University of Pennsylvania kallberg@mail.sas.upenn.edu
************************************************************************
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Thanks!
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:16:05 +0100
Hi!
Many thanks to everyone who replied to my questions about slang and the
Oscar Wilde trials.
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:37:50 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Buchanan's sexuality
I thank Rictor Norton and Alexander Katz for their posts. This is not an
question that I have any interest in pursuing (though I find it
fascinating). It does strike me that every article supporting the
contention that Buchanan was/might have been gay has appeared in what I
would, I suppose (correct me if I'm wrong) a gay advocacy publication. Is
this simply because more established historical journals are anti-gay? Or
might it be because the evidence is slim? Has anyone here attempted to
submit an article to an "established historical journal" arguing that
Buchanan was gay? I'd be interested in opinions about this; the broader
question--about the use and abuse of historical evidence--is something I'm
much interested in.
Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
kolb@ucla.edu
___________________________________________________________________
From: "jayD" <jaysd@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: New member details
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:36:05 +0100
You asked for a brief description of myself. I heard about the list from
the Women's History Network Southern Newsletter, which I now edit. I used
to work in publishing, ending up as head of copyediting at Mills & Boon,
which I left in order to write about the novels. My book 'The Romance
Fiction of Mills & Boon 1909-1990s' was published last year by UCL Press.
During the writing of the chapter on sex I became interested in 'sex
novels' by women, in particular why they write sexually violent novels -
e.g. The Sheik and the bodice rippers of the 70s. My current research is on
Georgette Heyer's novels, which have no sex per se in them - which raises
interesting questions as well!
j
(jay Dixon)
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:20:56 +0100
From: Ianthe <ianthe@duende.demon.co.uk>
Subject: 'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel (fwd)
June 7, 1999
'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel
NEW YORK (AP) -- Contributing yet another end-of-the-century
list, an organization of gays in publishing has compiled the
100 greatest gay novels of all time, with Thomas Mann's "Death
in Venice" coming in at No. 1.
The novella about a writer's infatuation with a pubescent boy
was followed by James Baldwin's "Giovanni's Room," the story
of an expatriate's struggle with his sexual identity, and
"Our Lady of the Flowers," Jean Genet's fantasy about a male
prostitute in the Parisian underworld.
Two classic French novels finished fourth and fifth: Marcel
Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past" and Andre Gide's
"The Immoralist."
The list was compiled by Publishing Triangle, which consists
of more than 250 gay and lesbian writers, editors, agents and
publishers.
Fourteen judges were on the Publishing Triangle selection committee,
among them John Loughery, art critic for The Hudson Review, and
Anthony Heilbut, author of a prize-winning biography of Mann.
--
--
Ianthe Duende
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:16:17 +0100
From: Ianthe <ianthe@duende.demon.co.uk>
Subject: New biography of Byron - review
The Sunday Times, London - 6th June 99
A racy life of Byron claims he was a paedophile and closet
homosexual. It is a gripping account, says _MIRANDA
SEYMOUR_, but needs more evidence.
_Madder and badder ?_
Making a reputation is easier than reshaping one,
especially when the person concerned has been dwarfed by
his own myth, as had happened with Byron. Few, with the
exception of the Greeks, have ever been able to take him
seriously as a military hero. Byron the libertine has
always been more convincing, although the biographers of 20
years ago were less keen than Benita Eisler in _Byron:
Child of Passion, Fool of Fame_ (H Hamilton 25 UKP) on the
notion of a writer whose penis was readier than his pen.
Wit has never been much in evidence among Byron's admirers.
It was the poet's bad luck to be a funny man who spent his
last years among men who had either no sense of humour or
were determined to outshine him. Who but his cheerful, dull
friend Edward Williams could have imagined Byron was being
serious when he loudly asked Shelley what the rubbish was
that he was reciting at dinner. (Oh horror! that he should
not have recognised his own Childe Harold! noted the
shocked Williams, missing the mockery.) Who but Shelley
could have written those long, painfully sincere letters to
Byron, begging him to lay off depravity and devote himself
to saving the world?
Byron's most recent biographers are of the poker-faced
school. They would, I can't help feeling, prefer a day with
the poet's wife, his half-sister or even Williams to an
hour of his mercurial company. Meeting him could only be a
disappointment for Eisler, who believes that Byron's poetry
was a lightly veiled form of autobiography, and uses it to
keep a bad - even by Lady Caroline Lamb's standards - man
down.
Here is an example of Eisler's interpretative approach.
Byron is 18. He has arrived in London. Shortly after doing
so, he writes a poem about a youth called Daematas, "a
slave to every vicious joy,/From every sense of shame and
virtue wean'd,/In lies adept, in deceit a fiend". There is
more of the same; there is no bottom to the sinks of
iniquity into which young Daematas has been plunging. Now
he has had enough and "pall'd with vice, he breaks his
former chain". Any teenager who ever kept a diary or wrote
bad poems will recognise the genre. But Eisler is convinced
that Byron is setting down his own experiences. "Vice," she
primly comments in response to Daematas's resolutions for
self-improvement, "may indeed have begun to pall."
Phyllis Grosskurth, whose life of Byron was published last
year, shared Eisler's readiness to believe that Byron on
paper and Byron in life were one and the same. But Eisler,
who has produced by far the better book, goes much further.
At her best, she is superb. Few writers on Byron have given
us the settings of a memorable life in more evocative
prose. Eisler is magnificent in her description of his
vulgar, vastly overpriced refurbishment of Newstead Abbey -
the skulls perched on spindly flower stands, the bed
quivering with tassels and topped by a coronet woven in
yellow silk. (There are moments when Byron and Elvis
Presley don't seem a hundred miles apart; Byron, too, had
more talent than taste.)
Locations are Eisler's speciality. Venice in the last
stages of decadence is memorable, a ravaged dowager of a
city; Melbourne House (now the Scottish Record Office) has
never seemed more aflame with intrigue and treachery. Her
description of Byron limping past the parlour of Lady
Melbourne, "the Spider", climbing towards Caroline Lamb's
tiny bedroom at the top of the winding stairs, is unlikely
to be bettered. Perceptive insights abound. A gruesome
episode in Don Juan is shrewdly connected to the shipwreck
of Byron's grandfather, when only the skin and paws of his
deceased pet kept him alive. An early poem is quoted to
show that, long before Byron acquired the cynicism and
versatility required for his masterpiece, he had found his
chatty, mocking narrative voice. His early political
ambitions are astutely assessed and ridiculed. Eisler is at
pains to show that Byron hoped to draw interest to his
poetry by his speeches - and that his chosen mentor, Lord
Holland, while publicly flattering, privately condemned the
young peer as a theatrical windbag.
Despite its considerable merits, this is not a biography
that should form any reader's first impression of Byron.
(His letters and journal fragments still tell us more than
the biographers have ever managed). Putting aside the
number of silly errors (Mary Shelley was not 19 but 16 when
she eloped, to name one), Eisler has a worrying readiness
to believe the worst, and to add a dollop more. Lord Grey
de Ruthyn is usually supposed to have shocked Byron by a
homosexual overture when he was still a boy. In Eisler's
account, Byron's shock derives from the strength of his own
homosexual feelings. References to his boxing coach as
"Master" support hints at another homosexual connection.
Many, many lie ahead.
The picture does not lighten. Busily establishing Byron's
role as a paedophile - a surprising new theory that Eisler
makes almost plausible - she takes quips about his mistress
Lady Oxford's 11-year-old daughter in deadly earnest.
Mulling over the unholy alliance of Byron's half-sister
Augusta and his wife Annabella after he left England, she
is ready to swallow every extravagant word that either of
them said about Byron's behaviour during his marriage.
Further, she suggests that Annabella may have been as much
under Augusta's spell as Byron himself; a lesbian
relationship is not ruled out. And yet, as Eisler surely
knows, Annabella's version of a nightmare husband, as ready
to rape a weeping pregnant wife as to bury a bullet in her
stomach, remains bafflingly at odds with the accounts of
anybody who was not closely connected to her household.
Eisler's claims are large and damaging. They are not always
easy to confirm. Can she really believe that Byron, eager
to take lessons from de Sade on how to torment his wife,
sent his half-sister off to a fashionable London library to
request the marquis's works? Or that Augusta, goose though
she sometimes was, would have agreed to do this? Where did
Eisler find proof? She doesn't say. Isn't it easier to
recognise that Annabella, spurred on by her mother, was
ready to say anything that could prevent Byron being given
custody of their child? The law was against her; a man was
required to seem very monstrous for the courts to find in
favour of his wife.
Another, more intriguing Byron has slipped out of Eisler's
sight. She gives us the publicity-seeker, the rake who
called himself "a votary of Licentiousness and the disciple
of Infidelity". Missing is the man who read Augusta's bible
every day and who wrote, rather wistfully, in his 1821
journal, that the immortality of the soul is said to be a
"*grand peut-etre* - but still it is a grand one".
--
Ianthe Duende
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:37:12 -0500
From: Jimmy Meyer <jmeyer@ACS.WOOSTER.EDU>
Subject: intro
Hello,
Although my name indicates otherwise, I'm a female historian of
medical and women's history, especially reproductive rights and policy. I
work as an editor while revising a manuscript based on my dissertation, the
history of a pioneer birth control clinic in Cleveland, OH (now celebrating
its 70th anniversary).
I coedited _U.S. Aging Policy Interest Groups_ (Greenwood, 1992)
and was assoc. ed. of and contributor to the _Encyclopedia of Cleveland
History_ and _Dictionary of Cleveland Biography_ (Indiana U Press, 1996).
My disparate research interests, in addition to the above, include
the history of philanthropy and women's voluntarism, eugenics, and the
general discontinuties between policy (legal, medical, etc) and practice in
the area of sexuality.
J.
Ms. Jimmy Elaine Wilkinson Meyer, Ph.D.
Assistant Editor, Wooster, the Magazine for Alumni and Friends
The College of Wooster
1189 Beall Ave.
Wooster, OH 44691-2363
(330) 263-2243 FAX: (330) 263-2594
###
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:28:56 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: 'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel (fwd)
"Death in Venice" a novel??? I don't think so.
Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
kolb@ucla.edu
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:27:51 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: New biography of Byron - review
This of course is nice to have. But it is copyrighted material, and
(though it's extremely unlikely) one might get into trouble for post such
on a publicly subscribed list. The list and listowner could get into
trouble too. I've had a little experience with this.
Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
kolb@ucla.edu
___________________________________________________________________
From: "jayD" <jaysd@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: Women's History Network
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:11:42 +0100
Paula ( and anyone else interested) -
Women's History Network is an organisation of British historians interested
in women's history - all periods and all countries. It holds an annual
conference and publishes a quarterly Newsletter. There are regional groups
as well. For further details their Net address is:
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/fawcett/WHN/women.html If you have problems they can
be accessed thru' the Fawcett Library homepage:
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/fawcett/main.htm
j
(jay Dixon)
___________________________________________________________________
Date: 10 Jun 1999 08:31:44 -0000
From: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: Women's History Network
Further to jay's message about this, there is a link on my website, on the
Women's History: Useful Links page
Lesley
histsex-owner@listbot.com
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:10:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robin Brownlie <brownlie@YorkU.CA>
Subject: Re: 'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel (fwd)
Personally, I find it astonishing that the list doesn't even include Jane
Rule's Desert of the Heart, which is a great deal more explicitly queer
than several on the list, and is also, to my mind, an excellent piece of
fiction. I'm sure it's been more widely read than a number of the other
lesbian selections.
Robin Brownlie
Toronto
___________________________________________________________________
Date: 11 Jun 1999 14:25:04 -0000
From: "Histsex:For historians of sexuality" <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: Administrative information
Changes have been made to various settings relating to lists, and I can
inform members of Histsex that messages are now automatically generated as
'reply to all' rather than the individual poster.
Lesley
histsex-owner@listbot.com
___________________________________________________________________ From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Herpes and clitoris: thanks
Very many thanks to everyone who supplied me with information on the =
above subjects.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:42:06 +0100
The Sheikh is to modern tastes an extremely disturbing book - though given
that the 'hero' also falls in love with the heroine, their relationship
actually turns out like an early fictional example of 'Stockholm syndrome'
(sick mutual dependency). However, the abduction/rape motif (however
excessive in this particular version) was presumably a attractive to
readers (and perhaps even the author?) because in responding to the fantasy
(as presumably they did) they could disown any sexual desires of their own,
while getting them vicariously gratified. There's some discussion of this in
one of Joanna Russ's essays (I think in the Magical Mommas, Trembling
Sisters, Puritans and Perverts collection).
Given that even Marie Stopes (who should have known better) in Married
Love (which was maybe an even bigger best seller) advised women to be
'nymphs always escaping' (a strategy by no means typical of her own life, as
far as one can tell) it would have been difficult for most women in the
1920s to a) acknowledge their desires b) act on them, even in the world of
fantasy.
Even sex radical Stella Browne, who seems to me more in touch than most
of her contemporaries with her own sexuality, mentioned the attractions of
'ardour' in men - this may say something about the erotic style of the
British male in the interwar period, i.e. backwards in coming forwards.
But a complex issue and one which is not just a historical curiosity,
since 'bodice-ripping' seems still in fashion.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Willis <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
To: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex@listbot.com>
Date: 12 June 1999 16:07
Subject: The Sheikh
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality -
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>Hi!
>
>I was interested in Jay's mention of The Sheikh. I read it a couple of
>years ago and was horrified by its glorification of rape and sexual
>violence. (For anyone who hasn't read it, it's about a woman who is
>abducted and repeatedly raped, and then - incredibly - falls in love with
>the rapist.) It's probably the most terrifyingly misogynist text I've ever
>read (even though it's written by a woman). I'm totally baffled as to
>why the author wrote it and how on earth it became such a huge bestseller
>among a female readership. Not being an expert on 1920s literature, I'm
>probably missing something obvious here! I'd be interested to hear anyone
>else's views on this.
___________________________________________________________________ From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel (fwd)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:55:17 +0100
Yes - both the book and the film were marvellous! I'd also recommend Sarah
Walters' "Tipping the Velvet" though this was probably published too
recently to get on the list.
All the best
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Brownlie <brownlie@YorkU.CA>
To: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex@listbot.com>
Cc: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex@listbot.com>
Date: 10 June 1999 15:12
Subject: Re: 'Death in Venice' Is No.1 Gay Novel (fwd)
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality -
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>Personally, I find it astonishing that the list doesn't even include Jane
>Rule's Desert of the Heart, which is a great deal more explicitly queer
>than several on the list, and is also, to my mind, an excellent piece of
>fiction. I'm sure it's been more widely read than a number of the other
>lesbian selections.
>
>Robin Brownlie
>Toronto
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: The Sheikh
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:32:56 +0100
Hi!
I was interested in Jay's mention of The Sheikh. I read it a couple of
years ago and was horrified by its glorification of rape and sexual
violence. (For anyone who hasn't read it, it's about a woman who is
abducted and repeatedly raped, and then - incredibly - falls in love with
the rapist.) It's probably the most terrifyingly misogynist text I've ever
read (even though it's written by a woman). I'm totally baffled as to
why the author wrote it and how on earth it became such a huge bestseller
among a female readership. Not being an expert on 1920s literature, I'm
probably missing something obvious here! I'd be interested to hear anyone
else's views on this.
On a totally different subject, a register of list members' research
interests sounds a great idea!
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
From: MillerJimE@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:32:09 EDT
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
In a message dated 06/12/1999 10:07:34 AM Central Daylight Time,
chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< (For anyone who hasn't read it, it's about a woman who is
abducted and repeatedly raped, and then - incredibly - falls in love with
the rapist.) It's probably the most terrifyingly misogynist text I've ever
read (even though it's written by a woman). I'm totally baffled as to
why the author wrote it and how on earth it became such a huge bestseller
among a female readership. >>
Time to be politically incorrect -- sometimes some people respond to
force, including fictionalized accounts of force. Rape fantasies are common
enough in both heterosexual and gay male relationships, though most
participants wouldn't want to participate in a real rape. Fictional themes
do indicate the presence of such fantasies among the readership, and the
perception of such fantasies in the author.
In Marguaret of Navarre's _Heptameron_ she gives her character the
name Parlamente and her husband, Henri II the name Hircan. After a story of
rape is told Parlamente and Hircan discuss the ethics of rape. Hircan's
position -- if a man does not succeed in seducing a woman it is a defilement
of his honor to Not rape her. Of course, this is a political marriage, but
Parlamente does seem to hold some real affection for Hircan. Also important
in the Heptameron is the general lack of female enjoyment of sex. For the
most part that enjoyment is for the man. Was Marguaret being modest or
descriptive?
In a related case, I think of William the Conqueror and Matilda. She
refused his suit because she was NOT interested in marrying a bastard
(William was painfully illigitimate). Finally, in frustration, William
visited Matilda, beat her up, then left still in a rage. Soon after he
received her acceptance, they were married, and William was one of the few
English monarchs who seems to have been monogamous. Their marriage was,
apparently, a strong one.
Not that I wish to defend rape. Rather, I think society produces
mechanisms for tolerating intolerable institutions. The book may be an
expression of these mechanisms by which women survived their forced position
in marriage and society.
Jim Miller
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:13:11 +0100
I've been thinking further about this. _The Sheikh_ is well-known for
various reasons - e.g. being filmed with Valentino in the title role - has
anyone else seen the clip where the heroine wilts to the floor under the
power of his Gaze? But - while jay Dixon has pointed to a surprisingly
different and even subversive construction of male-female relationships in
1920s Mills and Boon romances with strong hints of androgyny and female
empowerment, and alludes to the heroes of contemporary woman-authored crime
fiction such as Lord Peter Whimsey and Albert Campion - there was obviously
quite a market for books which presented this sado-masochistic model, or at
least had a strong streak of 'kinkiness'. Ethel M Dell's very popular novels
include a startling amount of floggings and brutality - although to my
recollection, since it's a long time since the Ethel M Dell phase of my
ongoing interest in female interwar novelists, no-one has sex outside
marriage, at least with a happy outcome, technical chastity is always
preserved, though compromising situations abound. Dell's whipping scenes are
not necessarily overtly sexual (i.e. within what is or becomes a
courtship/marriage context) - in _The Altar of Honour_ the youthful heroine
is mercilessly whipped by her much older half-sister, who has a
quasi-maternal/quasi-governess role towards her, for an innocent walk with a
young man. The curious sexual subtext in Dell was noted by the more
sophisticated readers of her time: Rebecca West's essay 'The Tosh Horse',
in _The Strange Necessity_ reflects on the irony of the clergymen's widows
at Bournemouth devouring the lastest Dell from the circulating library,
while DH Lawrence's _Lady Chatterley_ was banned (and his novels I think
generally embargoed by the circulating libraries).
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: The Fawcett Library <fawcett@lgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:18:18 +0100 (British Summer Time)
A couple of riders to Lesley's post on Ethel M. Dell, etc.:
The standard Barbara Cartland plot may not involve rape as
such, but does (or did, the last time I saw it) have a
fairly strong sadomasochistic element.
And for those that don't know it, try E.F. Benson's
very funny _Secret lives_, the central character of which
is a middle-aged maiden lady ca. 1930 who writes torrid
romances with a strong s/m element under the name of
Rudolfo Da Vinci.
David Doughan, Reference Librarian
The Fawcett Library (The National Library of Women)
fawcett@lgu.ac.uk
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/fawcett/main.htm
Phone: 0171 320 1189
Fax: 0171 320 1188
_________________
"Behind every great man
there is a surprised woman" (Maryon Pearson)
___________________________________________________________________
From: laura gathagan <lgathagan@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:34:12 PDT
Dear Jim,
I have no argument at all with your comments on rape fantasies past and
present, but I have to comment on the old saw about William the Conqueror
and Matilda. The source for this tale quite spurious, I believe. In fact
the only place I remember seeing the anecdote was in Agnes Strickland's
antiquarian collection "The Queens of England" pub'd in 1892 - no too long
before the Sheik, I suppose!
This particular piece is romanticized fiction, and the source it claims, a
chronicle of Ingerius, or Inger, is very obscure.
The fact that Matilda had royal blood (she was the niece to the King of
France) and her father was Baldwin IV, the very powerful Count of Flanders,
may at first glance make this match appear a strange pairing. However, at
the time of her marriage to William, he had just made it out of a close
scrape at the battle of Val-es-Dunes, and had the very firm backing of the
King of France, as his overlord.
Though these relations would soon sour, Matilda's father had every reason to
believe that William's favorable position in regard to the French throne
would continue. Since Baldwin of Flanders was in the midst of building a
strong alliance with France, at the expense of the papacy and the Holy Roman
Empire, linking his daughter to an up and coming great magnate, who was in
favor with the King of France, made an awful lot of sense.
Add to the mix, that though William was arguably the most famous bastard in
history, the rules of primogeniture were not at all entrenched in the
eleventh century. William's position was not as tenuous as we may view it
now, in light of the changes that took place a century later.
Here's one more factor: Matilda, because of her royal blood, was able to
rule in a very public, administrative way. Not only did her children claim
royal rights through her blood, but because she came by this status through
her natal family, she was empowered to act in highly unusual ways. She held
enormous amounts of land in Domesday before her death in 1082 - she was
crowned in a huge ceremony - receiving crown, ring and sceptre-
accoutrements which would not appear again for a hundred years in a queen's
rite. She actually adjudicated laws cases and handed down judgements in her
own name.
The point I'm making here is that like many noble women (and this would go
doubly so with royal women), Matilda stood to hold much more power by
marrying ever so slightly beneath her (though certainly, she could never
have dreamed of the actuality of 1066 at the time of her marriage in
1050/1). Add this to the reality that going against her fathers wishes (and
Baldwin was quite obviously in favor of the match- see William of Poitiers,
Orderic, William of Jum., etc) was not in any real sense an option, and the
rather lurid little tale about William winning Matilda over through the
sheer thrill of brute force begins to look like what it most likely is.an
attempt by a bored monastic to liven up what was perhaps a very unlively
story.
Remember - the tale was also going around at the same time that Matilda
gained all of Beorthric, son of Algar's English lands after the Conquest by
imprisoning him and having him murdered, all because he refused her hand
when she was just a girl.
Laura Gathagan
CUNY New York
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:59:13 +1000
From: heracook <dcoo8738@mail.usyd.edu.au>
Subject: Introduction and raape fantasy comment
Hi,
This is a message to introduce myself to the list. My name is Hera
Cook and my central research interests are female sexuality and the
female body, 20th century British physical sexual behaviour,
contraception and the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
On rape fantasies - Simon and Gagnon suggested in the 1970s that the
rest of the world could tell us as much about sex as vice versa. Sex is
not the only context in which we have fantasies in which someone
desirable tells us they want us, and that they will give us exactly what
we want without us having to work for it or question our own capacities.
The world would be a bleak place if fantasies had to conform to
reality... Women (and men) can still reject actual domestic and sexual
violence while also enjoying
constructing the world at a symbolic, mythic level in which needs are
satisfied in an infantile immediate way.
(Sorry to be confusing but my email address is Hera.Cook@virgin.net, not
the address from which this email comes)
Best wishes,
Hera
___________________________________________________________________
From: MillerJimE@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:29:16 EDT
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
In a message dated 06/15/1999 3:50:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
lgathagan@hotmail.com writes:
<< but I have to comment on the old saw about William the Conqueror
and Matilda. >>
I do need to stop posting when my info is based on secondary sources.
My source seemed quite sober, but I will concede the argument as this is not
my area. However, I hope to look into the background on this story soon. My
apologies.
Jim Miller
___________________________________________________________________
From: "jayD" <jaysd@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: The Sheik
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:16:49 +0100
Thought I'd join in the discussion on this as I seem to have inadvertently
started it. I haven't written anything before as I've been ill and not
thinking clearly, but hopefully the following comments will make sense.
Barbara Cartland - as far as I know BC never uses hero-heroine violence.
The heroine is the victim, which makes the hero (a) want to avenge her and
(b) brings out his protective instincts towards her.
What is interesting about _The Sheik_ is that it is hero-heroine violence
(I have always thought for the first time in popular women's fiction - does
anyone know differently?). If Hull had been a man it would be easy to
explain - women in the 20s were becoming sexually and economically
liberated (for anyone interested in the period Billie Melman's _Women and
the Popular Imagination_ is very good) and needed, at least in fantasy, to
be put back in to their place. As she was a woman... The same problem
arises with _The Story of O_ and the later bodice rippers.
What I find interesting about the Sheik is that he is not English. First of
all he's Arab and then discovered to be half Scottish and half Spanish -
tho' an aristocrat. This is in direct contrast to previous heroes (in
Mills & Boons, at anyrate) who were always, up until then, British,
generally English and definitely 'white', with all that implies. Male
sexuality is being displaced - it happens again in the 60s (in MIlls &
Boons) and at least some of the American bodice rippers of that era and
later involve white mistress and black slave.
What I am tentatively putting forward here is a theory that these books are
intertwining race and sexuality in a way that had not been done before and
which is significant to the time it was written in, when, in these
particular cases, Britain and America felt under threat from 'outside'
forces. But that is as far as I have got!
j
______________________________________________________________________
From: laura gathagan <lgathagan@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:28:17 PDT
Jim,
No apology necessary - how were you to know your perfectly understandable
post would be intercepted by someone who specializes in Matilda of
Flanders?? Do let me know what you run across - I'm always in the market for
every tidbit when it comes to William's redoubtable wife!
Laura Gathagan
CUNY New York
___________________________________________________________________
From: Donna Larsen <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:38:25 PDT
There are some Sadomasochists who have Rape fantasies. It does not
necessarily mean that they want a real life nonconsensual rape to happen,
though some SM scenes have been built around then idea of a pretend one. I
Have known both men and women to have this fantasy.
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:41:52 +0100
Hi!
>> their relationship
>> actually turns out like an early fictional example of 'Stockholm
syndrome'
>> (sick mutual dependency).
Interesting! Is this the syndrome that's also cited as an explanation of
why some women stay with men who abuse them?
On reflection, I wondered if part of the reason for "The Sheikh"'s
popularity was that it represents the punishment of an independent woman.
In the early chapters she's presented as a latter-day New Woman who rejects
dependence on men. Her eventual sinking into subservience and dependence as
a result of male sexual violence perhaps reflects contemporary society's
hostility to early feminism's attempts to disturb the patriarchal status
quo. What does anyone else think?
>Time to be politically incorrect -- sometimes some people respond to
>force, including fictionalized accounts of force. Rape fantasies are
common
>enough in both heterosexual and gay male relationships, though most
>participants wouldn't want to participate in a real rape. Fictional themes
>do indicate the presence of such fantasies among the readership, and the
>perception of such fantasies in the author.
I'm a little dubious about this. At the risk of sounding sexist, this is an
argument I've often heard put forward by men, but never by women. It's
usually followed by comments to the effect that "When a woman says no she
really means yes". (Though I do appreciate this is NOT what you're saying!)
Texts such as "The Sheikh" seem to embody some very worrying and dangerous
cultural assumptions about female sexuality.
A real-life parallel to "The Sheikh" is the recent press and tv coverage of
the case of Aberash, a 16 year old Ethiopian woman who was abducted and
repeatedly raped by a man who intended to force her to marry him. During
her ordeal, she picked up his gun and shot him. She escaped, but the local
elders decreed that the rape and abuse were acceptable, and that her parents
should pay compensation to the family of the rapist. Female equality still
has a LONG way to go, to put it mildly.
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
From: "jayD" <jaysd@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: Reference request
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:10:21 +0100
Hera -
Who are Simon and Gagnon?
j
___________________________________________________________________ From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:06:35 +0100
>On reflection, I wondered if part of the reason for "The Sheikh"'s
>popularity was that it represents the punishment of an independent woman.
>In the early chapters she's presented as a latter-day New Woman who rejects
>dependence on men. Her eventual sinking into subservience and dependence
as
>a result of male sexual violence perhaps reflects contemporary society's
>hostility to early feminism's attempts to disturb the patriarchal status
This would be plausible if it were men reading it as a patriarchal revenge
fantasy: the evidence is, however, that it was women who were reading it
(and I think - ? from Melman's book - this was considered somewhat
subversive). I think it raises interesting questions about women's fantasy
lives, but I'm not sure I can either frame what they are, or give any
coherent answers, at the end of a long hard day. I'm still mulling the
question over in odd moments.
I have been led to believe - does anyone have better evidence for this -
that a lot of male pornography involves male forced submission - or is this
just a specialised dominatrix subset (I think I'm going here on Gillian
Freeman's _The Undergrowth of Literature_ which came out about 1968 and
cannot be regarded as the most uptodate source on the subject!)?
Lesley
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Joyce Jones" <hoop5@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:37:53 -0700
I've lost the original posting, but I think it was asking why women bought
this book. I have to say I don't know. Look at the popularity of Camile
Paglia feminists today: women who voluntarily and blatantly state that
feminism is bunk, boys will be boys, girls should be girls, and we'd all be
better off. I guess it has to do with the fact that for an oppressed people
to acquiesce in their oppression and see it as inevitable or right makes
their state more acceptable to themselves. If they see that someone who
tries to achieve individual freedom is not only slapped down but accepts the
beating, it makes their not fighting back feel like the prudent thing for
them to do. The idea that there is safety in numbers, that freedom is
possible if we all stand together is a very difficult concept for some
people to believe.
Joyce
___________________________________________________________________
From: The Fawcett Library <fawcett@lgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:02:06 +0100 (British Summer Time)
The Quotation of the Week from Dorothy L. Sayers on Lesley
Hall's website is a reminder of the extent to which the
"rampant" model of male sexuality was accepted even in the
early 20th century - DLS finding in this at least some
common ground with DHL (for something nearer the reality
see Lesley's _Hidden Anxieties_). This phallic stereotype
was also the predominant one in the pornography I saw in
the days of my comparative youth (days when Ursula K.
LeGuin was writing for _Playboy_, and the airbrush still
ruled). I don't recollect seeing any obvious
male-masochistic stuff around in the 1950s-1960s - but I
must admit that my sample was not wide. Certainly the
cards advertising prostitutes in London phone booths would
seem to indicate that there is a definite market for
"discipline", and popular culture (Tom Sharpe, etc.) gives
the impression that this is not something new.
David Doughan, Reference Librarian
The Fawcett Library (The National Library of Women)
fawcett@lgu.ac.uk
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/fawcett/main.htm
Phone: 0171 320 1189
Fax: 0171 320 1188
_________________
"Behind every great man
there is a surprised woman" (Maryon Pearson)
___________________________________________________________________ From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:50:14 +0100
I've finally managed to check the Joanna Russ essay on women and sexual
fantasy: 'Pornography by women, for women, with love', in _Magic Mommas,
Trembling Sisters, Puritans and Perverts: Feminist Essays_ (The Crossing
Press, 1985). The whole essay is exceedingly pertinent and I won't quote it
at length: it's a discussion of the genre of 'slash' or 'K/S' fantasy
self-published by female sf fans, set in the Star Trek universe and premised
on a sexual relationship between Kirk and Spock, and what this suggests
about female sexual fantasies and fantasizing. She points out that the
authors of this spend a lot of time setting up situations in which the
sexual contact is ultimately inevitable, brought about by 'fate' - 'pushed
together by some force outside themselves'.
She includes some comparison with commercially available S and M
pornography, and argues, about women's rape fantasies, that
'We know that women don't want to be raped; episodes in female fantasies
that look like rapes really are something else, i.e., Will somebody,
something, for heaven's sake, enable me to act?....
Women, after all, fantasize "rape" as the solution to issues of permission
and forced passivity'.
Lesley
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheik
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:34:32 +0100
Hi!
Jay wrote
>What I find interesting about the Sheik is that he is not English. First of
>all he's Arab and then discovered to be half Scottish and half Spanish -
>tho' an aristocrat. ...
>What I am tentatively putting forward here is a theory that these books are
>intertwining race and sexuality in a way that had not been done before and
>which is significant to the time it was written in, when, in these
>particular cases, Britain and America felt under threat from 'outside'
>forces. But that is as far as I have got!
In the light of this, it's interesting that (if I remember rightly) the
heroine doesn't get pregnant until after she's discovered that he's really
European (ie white). Perhaps the author felt that rape was acceptable as a
plot device only so long as it was clear that wouldn't result in a mixed
race baby! Am I right in thinking that he reveals his true origins after
he's rescued her from abduction by another Sheikh, who definitely is Arab?
It's also interesting that the film starred Valentino, who was white, rather
than a darker-skinned actor.
>Male
>sexuality is being displaced - it happens again in the 60s (in MIlls &
>Boons) and at least some of the American bodice rippers of that era and
>later involve white mistress and black slave.
This reminds me of a scene in some trashy 1950s novel I read as a teenager,
in which the heroine's family are scandalised that she's been "corrupted" by
seeing Paul Robeson in "Othello" - they're white and see black male
sexuality as a threat.
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Sheikh
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:01:19 +0100
Hi!
>> The Quotation of the Week from Dorothy L. Sayers on Lesley
>> Hall's website is a reminder of the extent to which the
>> "rampant" model of male sexuality was accepted even in the
>> early 20th century
And even as late as the 1970s. I went to a mixed comprehensive, where any
girls who didn't wear tights in summer were told off because they might be
"exciting" the boys, who of course couldn't be held responsible for their
sexuality! :-) My mind boggled at this then, and still does!
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________ From: "jayD" <jaysd@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: Valentino - the Sheik
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:37:26 +0100
Chris wrote that it was interesting that Valentino was white - not a darker
skinned actor. But surely part of the appeal of Valentino was the very fact
that he wasn't 'white' - i.e. not Anglo-Saxon?
j
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:56:00 +0100
From: Stacy Gillis <stacy.gillis@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: CFP: Villainy in Detective Fiction/Film (Collection -
07/31;2000/03)
Professor Moriarty, Dr. No, Bridget O'Shaughnessy, Blofeld, Count Fosco, Fu
Manchu, Keyser Sozé, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Cruella de Vil, Jaws - from Britain to
America, from novel to film, from thug to mastermind, these villains are
often more interesting than their heroic opponents. The relationship
between the villain and the hero(ine) is often the crux of the entire
story. But what makes a villain? What is villainous activity? How have
villains changed over the past two centuries?
Possible topics include but are not limited to:
Gender and villainy
Vicarious appeal of villains
Villains capturing the public imagination
Villainy as a reflection of changing social mores
Relationship between hero and villain
the difference between villain and hero
Villain as Other
Villains as plot devices
Poweful versus weak villains
How society deals with villains
Victims and villains
Faceless organizations as villains
Masterminds versus thugs
Sensation fiction villains
Villains and violence
Villains and fate
We are soliciting abstracts for a collection focusing on Villainy in
Detective Fiction/Film. Abstracts of 500 words, as well as a brief c.v.,
must be submitted by the end of July, 1999. Final drafts (25 pp., MLA
format) must be submitted by March 2000. The full proposal is available
upon request.
Please send abstracts and queries to:
Stacy Gillis/ Philippa Gates
School of English
Queen's Building
University of Exeter
Exeter, Devon
EX4 4QH
United Kingdom
E-mail: stacy.gillis@ukonline.co.uk
p.c.gates@exeter.ac.uk
---------------------------
Stacy Gillis
stacy.gillis@ukonline.co.uk
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/stacy.gillis/index.htm
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Grant Allen list
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:00:33 +0100
Hi!
I've set up an e-mail discussion list about Grant Allen. If any of you
would like to join (and I hope you will!) details are at:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/GrantAllen
All the best
Chris