Random Thread

[zompist]

But this raises the question, when did Western literature get so prudish? Because medieval literature didn't shy away from the explicit.

Now there is quite a surprising claim. Considering how fanatically religious they were, I struggle to imagine Mediæval literature allowing anything beyond furtive glances.

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

[malloc]

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

None really, but I have read some premodern literature here and there along with summaries of such and it generally sounds quite chaste by modern standards. It's well-known that people in the past were generally quite conservative by contemporary standards with sexual restraint valued much more highly. The limited medical technology of the time made pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease much more dangerous. It makes sense that would carry over to literature just as our own media rarely valorizes things we consider immoral like cannibalism.

[zompist]

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

None really,

Then you don't know. You could, you know, do some elementary Google searches. Or geez, start with Chaucer.

[Travis B.]

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

None really, but I have read some premodern literature here and there along with summaries of such and it generally sounds quite chaste by modern standards. It's well-known that people in the past were generally quite conservative by contemporary standards with sexual restraint valued much more highly. The limited medical technology of the time made pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease much more dangerous. It makes sense that would carry over to literature just as our own media rarely valorizes things we consider immoral like cannibalism.

Dammit, this is actual medieval literature.

[bradrn]

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

None really, but I have read some premodern literature here and there along with summaries of such and it generally sounds quite chaste by modern standards. It's well-known that people in the past were generally quite conservative by contemporary standards with sexual restraint valued much more highly. The limited medical technology of the time made pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease much more dangerous. It makes sense that would carry over to literature just as our own media rarely valorizes things we consider immoral like cannibalism.

Dammit, this is actual medieval literature.

Or, speaking of Chaucer, this.

[malloc]

Then you don't know. You could, you know, do some elementary Google searches. Or geez, start with Chaucer.

I will take your word for it, although it seems hard to square with the devout religiosity characteristic of the era.

[masako]

A "mism" is an object or event that makes one say "hmm".

I experienced three misms today.

[keenir]

And this is based on reading how much medieval literature?

None really, but I have read some premodern literature here and there along with summaries of such and it generally sounds quite chaste by modern standards. It's well-known that people in the past were generally quite conservative by contemporary standards with sexual restraint valued much more highly. The limited medical technology of the time made pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease much more dangerous. It makes sense that would carry over to literature just as our own media rarely valorizes things we consider immoral like cannibalism.

(sp)"furative glances" probably did happen, with description, illustration, etc...but it was also a matter of what you were glancing at...

I recall reading that, in Lord Cromwell's time, a bared (or nearly bared) breast was barely worth commenting on...but to expose your wrists/ankles - mein gott have some restraint!

[keenir]

A "mism" is an object or event that makes one say "hmm".

I experienced three misms today.

congratulations?

[Man in Space]

With how people go rabidly feral over AI, we’re on track to experience the Butlerian Jihad several millennia ahead of schedule.

[malloc]

With how people go rabidly feral over AI, we’re on track to experience the Butlerian Jihad several millennia ahead of schedule.

We can only hope, metaphorically speaking at least. Humanity has every right to defend itself against attempts by the tech industry to render it obsolete. It boggles my mind that you would characters your fellow humans defending their culture and autonomy from ultra wealthy oligarchs as rabidly feral. Art and literature are just the beginning. They have already announced their intentions to give every area of intellectual and creative activity over to artificial intelligence. I am not advocating violence by any means, nor the complete destruction of computers. But neither should we simply roll over and allow far right billionaires, steeped in anti-humanism and eugenic fantasies, to achieve their outrageous plans. Let machines deal with mindless drudgery and leave the thinking and dreaming to humans.

[Torco]

wasn't greensleves, that famous english medieval ditty, a reference to how a chick gets her sleeves green by getting boned on the grassy ground or something?

[Man in Space]

Her sleeves were green because she was on the Grassy Knoll. It’s a child ballad about JFK, if you read between the lines.

[keenir]

wasn't greensleves, that famous english medieval ditty, a reference to how a chick gets her sleeves green by getting boned on the grassy ground or something?

I thought it was a pledge of devotion from her admirer, who may or may not have been dumped into the friendzone or worse.

[alice]

wasn't greensleves, that famous english medieval ditty, a reference to how a chick gets her sleeves green by getting boned on the grassy ground or something?

I thought it was a pledge of devotion from her admirer, who may or may not have been dumped into the friendzone or worse.

I always thought it was about someone who never carried a handkerchief.

[alice]

But this raises the question, when did Western literature get so prudish? Because medieval literature didn't shy away from the explicit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane might provide a bit of a clue. There's a reference, which I can't find, somewhere in Davies' Europe: A History which suggests some time about 500 years ago, but I'm afraid I can't be more, er, explicit at the moment. I suspect Puritanism might be relevant, too.

[Ares Land]

You'd need experts to give you a better answer, but my very rough estimate would be: in the 1940s in English, in the 1800s in French.

In both cases there were scandalous predecessors, often banned or hard to get, e.g. Ulysses (1922), Lady Chatterley's Lover (1929), Tropic of Cancer (1934); Les liaisons dangereuses (1782), Justine (1791). But within a generation or two you could have explicit sex in mainsteam novels.

But this raises the question, when did Western literature get so prudish? Because medieval literature didn't shy away from the explicit.

Later than that for French literature, though earlier I think than English literature.
I don't remember anything really explicit in Les liaisons dangereuses, though the implications were enough to get it banned. Justine and the rest of sad is extremely explicit (and very disturbing!)
There was quite healthy market in porn and erotica of course, though published in clandestinity. Appolinaire's Les onze mille verges was written in 1909 but officially 'published' in the 1970s. Of course you could read it before that if you knew where to look!
I remember 18th century writers being quite explicit generally, Diderot, in particular, though most of the 18th century literature we find interesting was banned at the time.

More generally French writers got increasingly explicit about sex, beginning in the 1930s or so; sex scenes are rare though present in 1940s novels, unexceptional after the 1970s.

A new phenomenon is very graphic sex scenes, common after roughly 1970s. (Though there are very graphic depictions of child prostitution in Mort à Crédit, 1936.)

I'm not that familiar with medieval literature, but I'd mitigate your claim a little. It's definitely not puritan, and a lot more explicit than later works... but definitley not as graphic and open as we are.

Now there is quite a surprising claim. Considering how fanatically religious they were, I struggle to imagine Mediæval literature allowing anything beyond furtive glances.

Medieval Europe was very religious, to an extent that is hard to picture today. But much of what we associate with "medieval" religious fanaticism
is Renaissance or Early Modern. Savonarole at the cusp between the Middle Ages and Renaissance; the Spanish Inquisition(*), same but mostly Renaissance; witch hunts are early modern. Puritanism is Early Modern.
Generally speaking, Christianity in the Middle Ages was a lot less puritan than what came later on.

(*)The Medieval Inquisition is late medieval, starting in the 13th century. It was a pretty horrific institution, but (very roughly speaking) its Renaissance offshoots were worse.

[bradrn]

I'm not that familiar with medieval literature, but I'd mitigate your claim a little. It's definitely not puritan, and a lot more explicit than later works... but definitley not as graphic and open as we are.

My impression is that, on an everyday basis, it was generally a lot more open than we are (e.g. street names mentioned earlier). But if you look at maximum openness (so to speak), then yes, on occasion we can be a lot more explicit than the medievals ever were.

[Man in Space]

I just went and got McDonald’s at like 12:45 AM, because I could.