tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post3128420543075568058..comments2024-03-26T11:03:45.486+00:00Comments on Let us Talk of Many Things; of Books and Queens and Pirates, of Mystery and Kings...: Bad Boys. Heroes or Cads? (Tuesday (recycled) Talk:Helen Hollickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-90692308042501379552012-10-09T17:05:00.413+00:002012-10-09T17:05:00.413+00:00In my opinion Welsh Mark us Welsh had a far better...In my opinion Welsh Mark us Welsh had a far better way of doing things!<br /><br />(I'm of Welsh heritage through my maternal grandfather & my DNA is 75% Celtic/British 25% Anglo Saxon, hence I regard myself as British (as in Briton) not as English)<br />Helen Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-15673163991608359922012-10-09T10:54:02.583+00:002012-10-09T10:54:02.583+00:00Being gay and male I might have a slightly differe...Being gay and male I might have a slightly different take on things. :) I agree, Jo Ann. Double standards have often been, and often are, in place. I do not find that acceptable. What's sauce for the goose should today be sauce for the gander.<br /><br />However, in the historical context, there is the practical issue of property inheritance. The way it worked then, society needed to know the paternity of a child. Without DNA testing, confining the woman to one sexual partner was the only way of being sure and of course this had to be within marriage. It was less important for the male to have many partners as illegitimate offspring wouldn't automatically inherit. By the way, under Welsh law, paternity was a matter of recognition. All sons were legitimate if recognised as such by the Father; being conceived within wedlock was less of an issue. But then we Welsh have always been different. LOL<br /><br />Welsh Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17796145619530989151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-88360255109252826432012-10-09T08:09:37.002+00:002012-10-09T08:09:37.002+00:00Very good point Elvara - when many women died beca...Very good point Elvara - when many women died because of childbirth (or were constantly pregnant) the "other" woman was very possibly seen as a god-send!Helen Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-80432819795859690162012-10-08T17:48:22.802+00:002012-10-08T17:48:22.802+00:00It was seen at some points in history as necessary...It was seen at some points in history as necessary for men to 'set their seed' .. faithfullness was not always appreciated... by Regency times often women were grateful when the husband found amistress to take care of 'that sort of thing' faithfulness meant not flaunting the mistress and not allowing her to take the wife's place as Mistress of the Household.. a very different thing indeed. a wife and a mistress could be friends and men often had a friendly dancer or singer in the equivalent of the black book<br /><br />elvaraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-86270335044943330162012-10-08T17:09:06.836+00:002012-10-08T17:09:06.836+00:00and being cynical Jo Ann - I bet it was only the _...and being cynical Jo Ann - I bet it was only the _young_ women who got stripped & whipped.... Helen Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-24487082906252003742012-10-08T16:52:06.662+00:002012-10-08T16:52:06.662+00:00The double standard is often ferocious, and it is ...The double standard is often ferocious, and it is terribly persistent. I can cite 17th century law the best - women convicted of adultery in Rhode Island faced a fine and multiple whippings. Men were fined, but most were whipped only if they couldn't pay the fine. The severity of punishments also seemed dependent on the person's standing in society. Poor people's penalties were proportionately far larger than the same fine levied on affluent folk, and affluent people were not whipped. If one stood high enough in society, a new law might enable a forbidden act, such as allowing a divorce for incompatibility instead of accusing a high-born wife of adultery.Jo Ann Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14811596481690068086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-38681814555386833702012-10-08T16:18:41.722+00:002012-10-08T16:18:41.722+00:00I completely agree Welsh Mark - not quite sure abo...I completely agree Welsh Mark - not quite sure about your last sentence, it all depends on the circumstances, I think. If a man is separated from his wife for many months (i.e. fighting in a war) do we seriously expect him to remain "faithful"? especially in a historical context when men were away for months, sometimes, years.<br />I suppose the only thing that jars here is that us women are expected to stay faithful - I assume because of the practicality of possible children resulting from any dalliance. <br /><br /><br /><br />Helen Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-64517165288251308482012-10-08T10:18:31.530+00:002012-10-08T10:18:31.530+00:00Re: American v British attitudes to 'fidelity&...Re: American v British attitudes to 'fidelity', formal religion my have something to do with it. But I believe its a deeper cultural difference than that. Americans often, despite the stereotypes about Brits, are more reserved. And what do we mean by 'fidelity? Sexual exclusivity is not, I would argue, in itself a measure of faithfulness. I would also argue that its unrealistic to expect the average male to remain sexually monogamous all his life. And depending on circumstances, I do not believe that sleeping with someone else is automatically a betrayal. Welsh Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17796145619530989151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-1286156252183393192012-04-03T18:59:27.337+00:002012-04-03T18:59:27.337+00:00All good points Lin; I personally would find it ha...All good points Lin; I personally would find it hard to believe that a character in any century prior to the 19th was 100% faithful to a wife (Samuel Pepys suddenly came to mind - his antics with the housemaid!)<br /><br />Faithful in love and honour yes, in the bedroom (or elsewhere!) no. <br /><br />My anti-hero (as those who know me know) is Duke William of Normandy. It was remarked, by his contemporaries that he was a strange fellow because he did not look at other women, beyond his wife; in other words it was thought odd that he didn't bed other women. I always said he was a peculiar fellow! LOLHelen Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292983846350273039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6132364668526714411.post-26758760277807875672012-04-03T12:14:34.326+00:002012-04-03T12:14:34.326+00:00It is interesting, isn't it, how people's ...It is interesting, isn't it, how people's moral compasses are affected depending on where they've been brought up. I wonder if those of us in the 'Old World' are a bit more in touch with our history? If we see it warts and all, and therefore we aren't so surprised that people back then (whenever it was) lived their lives by different standards?. Thinking about this it occurs to me that Diana Gabaldon's Jamie Fraser definitely falls into the faithful camp, and on the one occassion he strayed suffers pangs of guilt over it later, and Jamie is a hugely popular hero in both the USA and UK, with a very high 'phwar' factor. <br />I also wonder if it is seen as more socially acceptable for Jack Sparrow to wander because he doesn't have a wife back at home? (His most daring moment is, after all, when he kisses Elizabeth who is spoken for but quite definitely not married at that point - a moot point?) Whereas Sharpe, for instance, strays even when married! (And yes he is as charismatic in the books!)<br />Personally I have to say that I much prefer my heroes with a few human flaws and true to the morality of their own time, not ours. If we can't even be broad minded about our own past, how can we hope to be open minded about other societies in the present who don't conform exactly to our ways and morals?Lin Huttonnoreply@blogger.com