Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How the Pilgrims shaped our sex lives

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:53 AM
Original message
How the Pilgrims shaped our sex lives
Those Pilgrims! . . . who knew????


". . . And on his farm he had a sheep... only one person was put to death for a sex crime in the colony, poor Thomas Graunger, a teenage farm boy who, perhaps flush with the surge of hormones, turned to those he knew best. His story could make you look at the Thanksgiving turkey in a whole new way. . . . He was this year detected of buggery, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment.


. . . Mary, the wife of Robert Mendame, of Duxborrow was put on trial for using dalliance diverse times with Tinsin, an Indian, and after committing the act of uncleanness with him

. . . Women were often caught with the evidence: babies. The records are spotted with one bastard child after another or complaining husbands who cant figure out just when the new son or daughter was conceived. Babies showing up just a few months after marriage were also evidence of fornication.


. . .Whereas Edward Holman hath been observed to frequent the house of Thomas Sherive at unreasonable times of the night, and at other times, which is feared to be of ill consequence, The Court has therefore ordered, that the said Edward Holman be warned by the constable of Plymouth, that he henceforth do no more frequent or come at the house of the said Sherive, nor that the wife of the said Sherive do frequent the house or company of the said Holman, as either of them will answer it at their perils.

. . . up to 50 percent of Plymouth colonists had premarital sex, despite the laws. Some were gay or bisexual. There were bad marriages, cheating wives, teenagers flooded with hormones. Life was complicated.

Does that sound familiar?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15754563/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. What about the two turtle doves and a partridge in a pair tree?
:yoiks:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. not to mention
four calling birds and three French hens!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Man, that dude is really into the birds! Unfortunately,
it seems to make sense he stayed away from the 8 maids a'milking...

:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Life's always been complicated
Anyone who thinks that Pilgrims or Victorians or anyone else who lived long ago somehow abstained from sex before marriage, or did not have teenage pregnancies, or didn't have citizens who were gay, or fooled around with someone they weren't married to, or any other sexual peccadillos is living in a dream world.

Because of a lack of clergy, many areas in the colonial U.S. recognized the intent to be married and had no problem with people living together and producing many children before ever making it legal when a parson happened to wander through.

Actually, in some ways, there was more good sense applied to sex then than there is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Good sense is to be cognizant, communicative, and mindful of one's partner.
At at least try and then communicate if one perceives a problem and not just ditch out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I agree -
people who think the "50's" or the Pilgrims or Victorian England were any more virginial are dreaming.

People will do what people will do - regardless of religion, social mores, taboos, or societal quirks or any kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Speaks volumes for people, doesn't it?
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 12:16 PM by HypnoToad
Not even try? Is that it?

Why have marriages then? It's a waste of time and money. Donald Trump thinks so.

Why have ratings for movies?

Why stop bullies from beating up and being cruel to children?

Or pedophiles, because as we all know any victim of a pedophile in turn becomes one. (which I sure as hell disagree with, but the majority thinks it therefore it's okay?) Eventually there will be more victims than perps and as such we need to keep that grand tradition going.

People don't even try anymore. Yes, marriages can fail for legit reasons. Sometimes terrifying ones. But these days we're in a different sort of dreamland: When filth like Britney Spears has a marriage and then divorces 55 hours later, or George Michael who gets engaged and then gets caught several times crusiing for sex in bathrooms and claims it's "gay culture" to do so... and the public laps it up as if that is the norm and anybody wanting to build a life is unevolved. it's damn sickening. No respect or consideration for other people. And being so consciously disrespectful of people they were serious enough towards is not "people do what people will do". May as well let bullies off the hook, because "they're just children".

(note: Gays should be allowed to have civil unions. Some form of official status to affirm their relationships. Those who fight appreciate status more than those who have it given to them. (or at least the theory goes, but what is real anymore?) Civil unions are not related to any religious institution. And it's what many are fighting for, therefore there's no solid reason to deny. Especially if the people involved want to be true to the claim of commitment. In theory, it's a bit more significant as the decision to eat a chocolate or vanilla ice cream.)



On edit: Grammar & spelling typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. um -
I wasn't thinking about it from that respect. I was just thinking about the fact that you can't legislate (or religiously impose) restrictions on people wanting to have sex.

I totally agree with you that some have gone beyond the bend in "doing what they do" - but seriously I wasn't thinking about that when I made my post.


I'm sorry I seem to have made you upset. That's the last thing I'd want to do! :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. True. Morality must be self-imposed and self-regulated.
Which is also hard to do in a peer-based society. And any society that claims to be individualistic (e.g. the Libertarians) only set themselves up for failure. And our society sends out so many mixed messages that, in the end, nobody has credibility. Just like politicians telling people to do hard work while they're allowing corporations to offshore jobs. Mixed signals.

BTW: Always speak your mind. Do not cry for my sake. Or anyone else's. I was speaking about society in general, not a rant against you. :pals: Also keep in mind I tend to be high strung and do take things too seriously (no wonder I can't get a date :spray: ). That combined with personal issues from the past, I am somewhat biased, and caught between multiple mindsets. And some marriages are made from initial one-night stands. But one-night stands are uncomfortable and unfulfilling.

I also tend to think into things or look at facets most don't. Converserly, I tend to be obtuse to the facets most people see and live under regularly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. **caught between multiple mindsets.***
Exactly.

I'm so good at seeing the world from multiple POV's that sometimes I forget where I really stand on something. :sigh:


***I also tend to think into things or look at facets most don't. Converserly, I tend to be obtuse to the facets most people see and live under regularly.***


Ya see, HT - this is why I think I like you so much. We're very much alike in some ways, I think.


I use to be able to rip off a good rant and hold forth quite convincingly on any topic imaginable - but lately - well - I don't seem to be able to put words together as well as I used to. I don't want to upset people anymore. I just seem to keep most opinions to myself for fear of not being able to express myself properly, or in a way that doesn't piss SOMEbody off somewhere, ya know?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I hope you didn't get that sense from my post
Because all I was trying to say is that people tend to look back into the past and see a very prudish society. Which it wasn't. People did seem to be more discreet than they are now, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Discreet because anything perceived as wrong was dealt with severely.
Human nature will always human nature, but people should at least try to be a step better and if things have to break apart, then they do. For the sake of others. It's the courteous thing to do.

There is no culture in what Ms Spears and Mr Michael do. Single, unpartnered people can do what they like with each other. They aren't attached to anyone else who would be affected. That's the difference. One night stnads aren't necessarily a bad thing if the participants are mindful of their own consideration and health, and the health and consideration of others. (though anyone who spreads diseases should not be treated lightly... or given the death penalty, that's too easy. But I digress.) Spears makes a petty game of it all (55 hour marriage, K-Fed, she giggles over it all, what the fsck?), and who knows what sort of excuse Michael will conjure up next to justify himself. Why she bothered to marry and why he didn't tell Kenny Goss he preferred to be in public bathrooms with strangers, I have no idea. It's their loss in the end. But the media hypes them up and for all the wrong reasons. The fact we hardly heard from Kenny yet hear all the time about Federline doens't help either. Where's the counterpoint of celebrating celebrities who've been together for decades? Or non-hetero partners (or even hetero ones) who've stayed through thick and thin? Once in a while there's a small story (that reeks of tokenism), but the sensationalistic element gets so much exposure it's long past sensational. It's now our 'way of life'. Where is the balance? Not on Maury or Jerry Springer, that's for sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The worst part is
the beliefs I've held all these years, and tried to ditch because I'm so "not in the mainstream", may really be just a dream after all.

Maybe I should invite the stranger over. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Well, I don't beleive you should invite the stranger over
I didn't post in that thread but I do think it makes a lot more sense to meet in both a public and neutral place.

As for your beliefs, no one should ditch their beliefs because they're not "mainstream" or because they feel pressured to by other people's opinions.

I also think you need to consider that, although tabloid sensationalism is hugely popular, it's not necessarily representative of most people's lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Feb 22nd 2018, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC