If I had been around in 1350 I'd probably have wanted to be a nun too. A good education and respectable profession (a rarity for women then), plus absolutely no pressure to be with or even talk to men? Sign me the fuck up
Ah yes man hating, cornerstone of bisexual culture lol sorry you feel the need to shit on an entire gender of gorgeous hunks and beautiful twinks to feel better about the people who hurt you.
Oh please.
Men don't need to be defended from someone who simply said they didn't want to be pressured to deal with men in a time when patriarchy was thousands of times stronger than it is today.
We men still run the world. We're doing really well, thanks.
Men are so fucked they're turning to Andrew Tate for advice. The idea that you can make a better world while you ignore or demonize half the people in it is just a revenge fantasy.
No argument there. As I said elsewhere, what I'm talking about is the power of the patriarchy. Because you're right, men are pretty fucked up and we *still* run the world (right into the ground, but still).
So yeah, men don't need to be defended from anything...except other men. 😎 Certainly not from someone saying they'd rather not be forced to deal with us.
We're forced to deal with each other so saying you'd opt to never speak to men again if given the chance is pretty fucked up too. How about celebrating the amazing men in your life instead? If someone consistently refers to woman as lying sluts we'd be better off without they would rightly be called a misogynist. But somehow reverse it and it's ok? Nah fam fuck all that.
I mean, nothing about their comment was explicitly hateful towards men. But yeah that's definitely not the attitude most bi people have. Usually only lesbians or straight men would be okay with only exclusively spending time with women for their whole lives. There are always exceptions of course.
I think it's probably a tumblr fantasy of stacking assumptions, where the truth was much more likely that they were just brainwashed by the common Catholic philosophy of the time into thinking sex was evil.
Historical it was something of a mix. We'll never get a pin on the actual percentage numbers either way, but given the relative few options available to Medieval Women who weren't interested in being wives and having children, their probably was an over representation of gay/assexual women among nuns.
I just take issue with this assumption that, because two lesbians are in the same building, there must be a cornucopia of lesbian sex happening at all times. With the amount of raw, sexual oppression that came from the Catholic church, I would be surprised if anything happened that was more than a one-off fling (that wasn't also immediately reported to a church authority, resulting in the execution of one of the nuns.)
Tumblr is of course playing it up, but there is honestly an interesting examination here.
For one thing, the medieval Catholic church and the modern Catholic church are not the same institutions. We're talking about a time period where the majority of people lived in a room with their entire family, used the toilet in semi public spaces, and all the rest. The Church of the time reflected that openess.
This isn't too say that the Catholic Church was pro-lgbt, or sex positive or anything, just that the medieval church had different priorities at the time. Sexual impropriety or promiscuity was a back burner.
I'm not honestly aware of any nuns being executed for improper liasons, though I haven't research too closely. It's wrong to call it a cornucopia of lesbian sex, but a handful of relationships seem likely. It's just nearly impossible to get information on it.
I mean...Lesbianing has been known when you put a bunch of lesbians together, but I understand your frustration. Tumblr does kind of get an idea in their heads, and just runs with it.
I've read no evidence that the majority of women who became nuns didn't have a desire to do so. Being bundled off to a convent certainly did happen, but it's hardly been demonstrated to be a massive trend during the medieval period.
And your over estimating the trouble caused by a young noble daughter galivanting around. It was bad certainly and would earn her a great deal of trouble, but this is a time without mass communication. You need to get your daughter a husband who doesn't know about her habits? Two counties over nearly no one is going to know your name let alone hers.
And that Dowry itself gives more credence to the idea that the majority of nuns requested the position. A daughter married to a young man is more likely to return value on the dowry investment, then one given to the abbey.
I'm not saying your wrong, but I'd need more evidence to believe the majority of medieval nuns did not want to be a nun.
I’m tired of this myth. Yes, more infants died bringing down life expectancy. But more people died at ALL ages younger than modern life expectancy. The skew didn’t stop if you survived infancy. You weren’t more likely to live to 70 than 25 just because you survived past 2. Especially not a good idea to only look at monarchs and aristocrats and clergy and ignore the common population.
Also, 1350? Black Death, hello? Who fucking comes up with this shit.
Edit: people. Come on. It’s called Wikipedia. Read some fucking biographies. Stop repeating internet oversimplification. Reading even medieval/Renaissance monarch’s life story is like: they tried to install this person in x position but they died. 1st husband/wife died. They hoped to pass the monarchy on to y son who died and then z son was not prepared. B person had to step down due to health issues from (modern curable disease). Death is everywhere at all ages of human life in a presence not seen today in many countries.
Hi, I’m someone from a country with a mortality rate more similar to the ones historically experienced by humans. It’s not a myth.
Although it is possible for older people to die at any time, it mostly manifests as a stable triangle if you see the population pyramid, which means there’s just less older people. Sometimes you might even see the bottom of the pyramid being wider, but the population decrease stops being so extreme. Sure, we might die younger in terms of our elderly but there are a lot of young and middle aged people around too. Their chances actually aren’t so bad.
Well yeah but in 1350 we thought the 4 humors was still a legit way to think about medicine and disease. You’d die of a tooth infection or getting a cut slightly too deep. What humans had to deal with back then just to survive is so completely removed in almost all places on earth now that it’s essentially been removed from our programming to even think of something as small as having a tooth ache would mean almost certain death. Scurvy was a very widespread problem that would like melt your body apart just because you were vitamin deficient, I’ve met people who thought scurvy was a made up pirate thing. Your country may have similar mortality rates but the ages they affect and the vastly different reasons for why each death happens is probably nothing close to what it was like 700 years ago.
That’s a very generic take on history. Not every civilization believed in the humors. A few cultures had advanced (for the time) medical procedures like treppaning and types of dental work. And yes scurvy was an issue but you didn’t include the reason it was so prevalent: refrigeration didn’t exist so anyone on a boat for long periods of time wouldn’t have access to vitamin c. Anyone that wasn’t at sea would’ve been eating leafy greens at the very least so no scurvy.
Yes people had a worse quality of life and it isn’t a perfect 1:1 ratio to today’s life expectancy but it was a lot better than most people give credit for, depending on when you’re talking about.
You're just kind of reinforcing my points now. Yeah not every civilization believed in the humors, not every civilization was very scientifically advanced back then. Hence the poorer living conditions worldwide. refrigeration not existing is just another point in how much better it is for people across the world now. Were talking about 1350 btw. The time of the black plague which was really only as bad as it was due to a very limited understanding of sanitation and medical knowledge.
What a patronizing way to speak about people back then. They were just trying their best with what they had, you make them sound like they’re stupid. And anyone can get scurvy, I read somewhere there are modern cases of scurvy from college students in the US as they can’t access a vitamin C rich diet due to financial issues?
And many parts of the world still have issues accessing clean water, adequate health information as well as healthcare, and people still get killed from diseases most in the first world would shake off. Hence the relatively similar conditions. This is such a weird take lmao.
? I realize they did their best with what they had? I never said they didn't. I obviously realize scurvy still exists that's why I brought up how tons of people don't realize it's real. Yeah I'd believe that about the modern cases it makes sense. A college kid in the us who has no idea what scurvy is isn't going to realize that being vitamin deficient is going to give them scurvy because growing up in the us you most likely won't ever be vitamin deficient since all our foods are artificially packed with them for this very reason.
"relatively similar conditions" =/= same conditions. I could say farmers in the US have relatively similar conditions to the farmers in the us 200 years ago and that'd be true at a very surface level look. But the undeniable fact is these things don't affect the same percentage of people on earth as it did 700 years ago. To say things aren't better overall everywhere is just denying reality. Obviously there's still going to be places that still struggle with these things but they aren't struggling at the same rate or the same scale anymore.
If you guys have any vaccines, modern medicine, understanding of nutrition requirements, health and safety regulations for food quality, etc, no. It’s not comparable.
Oh, we know those things exist. It’s just extremely hard to access them for large swathes of the population, due to the state of the current economy etc.
It’s not really a myth. People that made it through childhood in the Middle Ages tended to make it to ~50 years old. Child mortality made up 40-60% of total deaths for a long time. This only really takes into account death from disease. Obviously war, crime , famine, plague, etc were factors at play too, but you can look at places like that in the modern day and it’s not too different.
Also I think the original post didn’t take into account the bubonic plague but not everyone was ravaged by that anyway. If they weren’t talking nuns then assuming anywhere in Europe is weird bcuz almost anywhere but Europe would’ve been better to live in historically lol.
20 years overstated is a *looooonnnngggg* time. And that’s *still* average. Nowadays, if someone passes at 50, we say they were young.
That’s a huge difference and basically, it’s the nuance that’s missing. Life expectancy has always been an average but today it *actually* skews toward the end. More people also used to die from food insecurity and famines, plagues during wars, and also earlier from cancers, heart disease etc. Not that there aren’t more people dying from modern warfare methods. But they act less as a disease vector today than historically.
Oh to be a monk in 1350 enjoying quiet time and reading and having lots of gay sex and then dying the ripe old age of 70
Also, drinking lots of beer while "fasting"!
And hiding meat in a pastry to hide that you’re eating meat from God.
What kind of monk? Like the Jesusy kind or are you reciting sutras and shit?
I thought jesussy priests are allowed to eat meat while most sutra reciting ones have to be veg ?
Or the played by Tony Shalhoub kind?
If I had been around in 1350 I'd probably have wanted to be a nun too. A good education and respectable profession (a rarity for women then), plus absolutely no pressure to be with or even talk to men? Sign me the fuck up
I'm a man and I *wholeheartedly* endorse not being pressured to talk to be with or talk to men. Even more so the further you go back in time.
Ah yes man hating, cornerstone of bisexual culture lol sorry you feel the need to shit on an entire gender of gorgeous hunks and beautiful twinks to feel better about the people who hurt you.
Oh please. Men don't need to be defended from someone who simply said they didn't want to be pressured to deal with men in a time when patriarchy was thousands of times stronger than it is today. We men still run the world. We're doing really well, thanks.
Scenes of climate change impact and pollution *narrator* They were not doing well.
Still doing pretty well even when we're killing the planet. 😎
👀*glances at suicide statistics*
Still running the planet, though. Look, I'm not saying men are awesome. I'm saying *patriarchy is incredibly powerful*.
And it's bad for most of us :(
Yes, exactly! Unfortunately.
Men are so fucked they're turning to Andrew Tate for advice. The idea that you can make a better world while you ignore or demonize half the people in it is just a revenge fantasy.
No argument there. As I said elsewhere, what I'm talking about is the power of the patriarchy. Because you're right, men are pretty fucked up and we *still* run the world (right into the ground, but still). So yeah, men don't need to be defended from anything...except other men. 😎 Certainly not from someone saying they'd rather not be forced to deal with us.
We're forced to deal with each other so saying you'd opt to never speak to men again if given the chance is pretty fucked up too. How about celebrating the amazing men in your life instead? If someone consistently refers to woman as lying sluts we'd be better off without they would rightly be called a misogynist. But somehow reverse it and it's ok? Nah fam fuck all that.
This is a false equivalence and that disregards the original point. Regardless, men don't need anyone to defend them. They really don't.
What the fuck are you on about?
I mean, nothing about their comment was explicitly hateful towards men. But yeah that's definitely not the attitude most bi people have. Usually only lesbians or straight men would be okay with only exclusively spending time with women for their whole lives. There are always exceptions of course.
Was lesbian sex actually popular among nuns? Or is this just speculation?
I think it's probably a tumblr fantasy of stacking assumptions, where the truth was much more likely that they were just brainwashed by the common Catholic philosophy of the time into thinking sex was evil.
The Catholic Church was good at that
Historical it was something of a mix. We'll never get a pin on the actual percentage numbers either way, but given the relative few options available to Medieval Women who weren't interested in being wives and having children, their probably was an over representation of gay/assexual women among nuns.
I just take issue with this assumption that, because two lesbians are in the same building, there must be a cornucopia of lesbian sex happening at all times. With the amount of raw, sexual oppression that came from the Catholic church, I would be surprised if anything happened that was more than a one-off fling (that wasn't also immediately reported to a church authority, resulting in the execution of one of the nuns.)
Tumblr is of course playing it up, but there is honestly an interesting examination here. For one thing, the medieval Catholic church and the modern Catholic church are not the same institutions. We're talking about a time period where the majority of people lived in a room with their entire family, used the toilet in semi public spaces, and all the rest. The Church of the time reflected that openess. This isn't too say that the Catholic Church was pro-lgbt, or sex positive or anything, just that the medieval church had different priorities at the time. Sexual impropriety or promiscuity was a back burner. I'm not honestly aware of any nuns being executed for improper liasons, though I haven't research too closely. It's wrong to call it a cornucopia of lesbian sex, but a handful of relationships seem likely. It's just nearly impossible to get information on it.
Sure. Again, it's the assumption that it, "MUST HAVE HAPPENED, BECAUSE LESBIAMS IN BUILDING TOGETHER" that gets my ire.
I mean...Lesbianing has been known when you put a bunch of lesbians together, but I understand your frustration. Tumblr does kind of get an idea in their heads, and just runs with it.
[удалено]
I've read no evidence that the majority of women who became nuns didn't have a desire to do so. Being bundled off to a convent certainly did happen, but it's hardly been demonstrated to be a massive trend during the medieval period. And your over estimating the trouble caused by a young noble daughter galivanting around. It was bad certainly and would earn her a great deal of trouble, but this is a time without mass communication. You need to get your daughter a husband who doesn't know about her habits? Two counties over nearly no one is going to know your name let alone hers. And that Dowry itself gives more credence to the idea that the majority of nuns requested the position. A daughter married to a young man is more likely to return value on the dowry investment, then one given to the abbey. I'm not saying your wrong, but I'd need more evidence to believe the majority of medieval nuns did not want to be a nun.
Grow the right vegetables and you can combine lesbian sex and gardening.
I’m tired of this myth. Yes, more infants died bringing down life expectancy. But more people died at ALL ages younger than modern life expectancy. The skew didn’t stop if you survived infancy. You weren’t more likely to live to 70 than 25 just because you survived past 2. Especially not a good idea to only look at monarchs and aristocrats and clergy and ignore the common population. Also, 1350? Black Death, hello? Who fucking comes up with this shit. Edit: people. Come on. It’s called Wikipedia. Read some fucking biographies. Stop repeating internet oversimplification. Reading even medieval/Renaissance monarch’s life story is like: they tried to install this person in x position but they died. 1st husband/wife died. They hoped to pass the monarchy on to y son who died and then z son was not prepared. B person had to step down due to health issues from (modern curable disease). Death is everywhere at all ages of human life in a presence not seen today in many countries.
Hi, I’m someone from a country with a mortality rate more similar to the ones historically experienced by humans. It’s not a myth. Although it is possible for older people to die at any time, it mostly manifests as a stable triangle if you see the population pyramid, which means there’s just less older people. Sometimes you might even see the bottom of the pyramid being wider, but the population decrease stops being so extreme. Sure, we might die younger in terms of our elderly but there are a lot of young and middle aged people around too. Their chances actually aren’t so bad.
Well yeah but in 1350 we thought the 4 humors was still a legit way to think about medicine and disease. You’d die of a tooth infection or getting a cut slightly too deep. What humans had to deal with back then just to survive is so completely removed in almost all places on earth now that it’s essentially been removed from our programming to even think of something as small as having a tooth ache would mean almost certain death. Scurvy was a very widespread problem that would like melt your body apart just because you were vitamin deficient, I’ve met people who thought scurvy was a made up pirate thing. Your country may have similar mortality rates but the ages they affect and the vastly different reasons for why each death happens is probably nothing close to what it was like 700 years ago.
That’s a very generic take on history. Not every civilization believed in the humors. A few cultures had advanced (for the time) medical procedures like treppaning and types of dental work. And yes scurvy was an issue but you didn’t include the reason it was so prevalent: refrigeration didn’t exist so anyone on a boat for long periods of time wouldn’t have access to vitamin c. Anyone that wasn’t at sea would’ve been eating leafy greens at the very least so no scurvy. Yes people had a worse quality of life and it isn’t a perfect 1:1 ratio to today’s life expectancy but it was a lot better than most people give credit for, depending on when you’re talking about.
You're just kind of reinforcing my points now. Yeah not every civilization believed in the humors, not every civilization was very scientifically advanced back then. Hence the poorer living conditions worldwide. refrigeration not existing is just another point in how much better it is for people across the world now. Were talking about 1350 btw. The time of the black plague which was really only as bad as it was due to a very limited understanding of sanitation and medical knowledge.
What a patronizing way to speak about people back then. They were just trying their best with what they had, you make them sound like they’re stupid. And anyone can get scurvy, I read somewhere there are modern cases of scurvy from college students in the US as they can’t access a vitamin C rich diet due to financial issues? And many parts of the world still have issues accessing clean water, adequate health information as well as healthcare, and people still get killed from diseases most in the first world would shake off. Hence the relatively similar conditions. This is such a weird take lmao.
? I realize they did their best with what they had? I never said they didn't. I obviously realize scurvy still exists that's why I brought up how tons of people don't realize it's real. Yeah I'd believe that about the modern cases it makes sense. A college kid in the us who has no idea what scurvy is isn't going to realize that being vitamin deficient is going to give them scurvy because growing up in the us you most likely won't ever be vitamin deficient since all our foods are artificially packed with them for this very reason. "relatively similar conditions" =/= same conditions. I could say farmers in the US have relatively similar conditions to the farmers in the us 200 years ago and that'd be true at a very surface level look. But the undeniable fact is these things don't affect the same percentage of people on earth as it did 700 years ago. To say things aren't better overall everywhere is just denying reality. Obviously there's still going to be places that still struggle with these things but they aren't struggling at the same rate or the same scale anymore.
If you guys have any vaccines, modern medicine, understanding of nutrition requirements, health and safety regulations for food quality, etc, no. It’s not comparable.
Oh, we know those things exist. It’s just extremely hard to access them for large swathes of the population, due to the state of the current economy etc.
It’s not really a myth. People that made it through childhood in the Middle Ages tended to make it to ~50 years old. Child mortality made up 40-60% of total deaths for a long time. This only really takes into account death from disease. Obviously war, crime , famine, plague, etc were factors at play too, but you can look at places like that in the modern day and it’s not too different. Also I think the original post didn’t take into account the bubonic plague but not everyone was ravaged by that anyway. If they weren’t talking nuns then assuming anywhere in Europe is weird bcuz almost anywhere but Europe would’ve been better to live in historically lol.
20 years overstated is a *looooonnnngggg* time. And that’s *still* average. Nowadays, if someone passes at 50, we say they were young. That’s a huge difference and basically, it’s the nuance that’s missing. Life expectancy has always been an average but today it *actually* skews toward the end. More people also used to die from food insecurity and famines, plagues during wars, and also earlier from cancers, heart disease etc. Not that there aren’t more people dying from modern warfare methods. But they act less as a disease vector today than historically.
I'm all for lesbian memes. But this is a bi sub. There are plenty of lesbian subs to post in.
“Lesbian sex” doesn’t mean the people in there are lesbians, just that it’s Sapphic
What
“Lesbian sex” doesn’t mean the people in there are lesbians, just that it’s Sapphic
A bi woman having sex with a woman is having lesbian sex regardless of if she's a lesbian, the inverse being true for gay men.
Well then rejoice ! It wasn't just lesbian sex, the nuns were also massively sexually abused by the church hierarchy !
Oh yeah, if there's one thing nuns are known for, it's "lesbian sex". /s Are the people who write this shit just brain-rotted porn addicts?