I heard it on We’re Not So Different which is a podcast with Dr Eleanor Janega Medieval Historian (and Luke Waters Star Wars podcaster), there’s a few episodes on sex specifically.
She also has a book “The once and future Sex: going medieval on women’s role in society”. I haven’t read it though (it’s sitting on my bookshelf.
Also both are Marxist-Leninists and Historical Materialists.
Am also on that podcast shit and IIRC the part you forgot to mention is thatremoved CANNOT result in conception. No consent = no orgasm = no conception
pregnancy = evidence of consent
“the woman’s body has a way of shutting it down” or whatever the stupid quote was from 10 years ago
Well perhaps not good intentioned, as you mention there’s nefarious aspects to it. But also more weirder too than random modern conservative misogyny. Like how Dr Janega points out it was medically recommended for young widows to get digitally stimulated by a female midwife to release the sperm lest their “womb suffocate” and kill them.
No it was a medieval thing they talked about. Related to humours.
I think probably structurally to encourage widows to remarry or as an excuse for promiscuous behaviour in widows (they’re just suffering from a sperm build up that makes them crazy!).
But an alternative was another lady helping you out (it’s not sodomy just medicine).
Edit: I might have read this on her blog actually, I’ll go diving.
I think glans might be in a « qu’est-ce que c’est » mood, as I like to call it.
Edit: Which is to say, it can’t seem to face up to the facts; it’s tense and nervous and it can’t relax; it can’t sleep cause its bed’s on fire; so don’t touch it, it’s a real live wire.
…Or put more simply, something’s going on in its life that’s put it on edge and causing it to act weirdly aggro for seemingly no reason, as is Hexbear tradition.
and even more complicated by, as was pointed out, the issue of vasectomy. it is semen but it is not “genetic material”.
like i said before this what not intended to describe in detail every specific situation that could arise, but to describe SOME OF THE KINDS of things that are contemplated by the law. the law is formulated in a cis-centric manner on purpose.
Was my list comprehensive? NO.
Didn’t realize yall needed this: I am not a lawyer. Moreever I am not a Person Who Is A Sitting Judge On The US Supreme Court. (Would not want to “dehumanize” by referring to a “supreme court judge”— I’m learning.) Super apologize for the confusion.
IT IS A STUPID LAW there is no way to talk about it that isn’t stupid.
so you think everyone produces semen when they cum?
maybe you didn’t understand this law is specifically about semen
Yes.
most sane reply
Wait until Ben Shapiro switches teams. He’ll find a way.
A popular scientific theory in the middle ages was that women had their own internal sperm (from internal testicles) and required orgasm to conceive.
Both are wrong but the first seems logical with the knowkedge of the time and the latter good intentioned.
Ooh where can I read more about this Medieval sex science?
I heard it on We’re Not So Different which is a podcast with Dr Eleanor Janega Medieval Historian (and Luke Waters Star Wars podcaster), there’s a few episodes on sex specifically.
She also has a book “The once and future Sex: going medieval on women’s role in society”. I haven’t read it though (it’s sitting on my bookshelf.
Also both are Marxist-Leninists and Historical Materialists.
Am also on that podcast shit and IIRC the part you forgot to mention is thatremoved CANNOT result in conception. No consent = no orgasm = no conception
pregnancy = evidence of consent
“the woman’s body has a way of shutting it down” or whatever the stupid quote was from 10 years ago
Well perhaps not good intentioned, as you mention there’s nefarious aspects to it. But also more weirder too than random modern conservative misogyny. Like how Dr Janega points out it was medically recommended for young widows to get digitally stimulated by a female midwife to release the sperm lest their “womb suffocate” and kill them.
I don’t remember that.
Is it related to the Victorian vibrator fake history?
No it was a medieval thing they talked about. Related to humours.
I think probably structurally to encourage widows to remarry or as an excuse for promiscuous behaviour in widows (they’re just suffering from a sperm build up that makes them crazy!).
But an alternative was another lady helping you out (it’s not sodomy just medicine).
Edit: I might have read this on her blog actually, I’ll go diving.
Edit edit I think this is the article https://going-medieval.com/2021/04/22/on-women-having-sex-with-themselves/#more-2901
This one touches on it too https://going-medieval.com/2021/09/03/on-semen-retention/
Edit edit edit I definitely think she also talked about it on the pod because these don’t reference lesbian stuff which she discussed,
then say CUM ROPES then or something holy fuck. not using AMAB and AFAB as nouns challange realy do be impossible ig
wow I’ve been so educated about being too “imprecise” i wish i was enlightened about “precision” like you are.
Take the L.
Removed by mod
you’re being defensive for literally no reason here. just don’t describe people as AMABs and AFABs
I think glans might be in a « qu’est-ce que c’est » mood, as I like to call it.
Edit: Which is to say, it can’t seem to face up to the facts; it’s tense and nervous and it can’t relax; it can’t sleep cause its bed’s on fire; so don’t touch it, it’s a real live wire.
…Or put more simply, something’s going on in its life that’s put it on edge and causing it to act weirdly aggro for seemingly no reason, as is Hexbear tradition.
As much as I love talking heads I am pretty sure Byrn was a fed asset.
Nawh, really? Damn.
Some people like to speak in a somewhat professional way to indicate they are serious. AMAB/AFAB accomplishing this purpose, CUM ROPES, does not .
The issue is you implying that “amabs” produce semen
would that it be the issue.
and even more complicated by, as was pointed out, the issue of vasectomy. it is semen but it is not “genetic material”.
like i said before this what not intended to describe in detail every specific situation that could arise, but to describe SOME OF THE KINDS of things that are contemplated by the law. the law is formulated in a cis-centric manner on purpose.
Was my list comprehensive? NO.
Didn’t realize yall needed this: I am not a lawyer. Moreever I am not a Person Who Is A Sitting Judge On The US Supreme Court. (Would not want to “dehumanize” by referring to a “supreme court judge”— I’m learning.) Super apologize for the confusion.
IT IS A STUPID LAW there is no way to talk about it that isn’t stupid.