
Three Wise Men in a Bed: Bedsharing and Sexuality in Medieval Europe (2014) - benbreen
http://notchesblog.com/2014/01/06/three-wise-men-in-a-bed-bedsharing-and-sexuality-in-medieval-europe/
======
hyperpape
More recent than that, you can point to Lincoln, who engaged in bedsharing
with another man and wrote some (by modern standards) quite suggestive
comments about the other man's thighs. It's been claimed that Lincoln was
bisexual, but I don't think it's a common theory among historians.

The range of acceptable "straight" behavior has greatly narrowed in the modern
west. I've read that in India, it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men
to walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly
less accepted than in the US.

~~~
rmc
> _I 've read that in India, it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men to
> walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly
> less accepted than in the US._

Not sure about India, but I've heard that in the Arab world, and seen in
Ethiopia, that men holding hands doesn't imply homosexuality. Different
cultures have different rules.

A man kissing a man on the cheek in France doesn't mean they are gay.

~~~
baddox
Yes, the meaning of the gesture of holding hands is important. In the U.S., as
far as I can tell it almost always indicates a romantic relationship (or
adults chaperoning young children, obviously).

~~~
falcolas
> or adults chaperoning young children, obviously

Even that is too frequently associated with romance by a small but vocal
population in the US.

~~~
task_queue
Is this really a thing?

~~~
fit2rule
For some Dads, alas, yes. It is a thing. Open affection towards ones children,
in some settings, can be a surefire way to attract unwanted attention from
people who can only be described as hair-trigger SJW's, just waiting to pounce
on any male they deem a threat, and 'offensive' behaviour such as holding ones
daughters' hand, or giving her a kiss in greeting, has often gotten a Dad in
more hassle than its worth. I think its atrocious - as a father, I can't think
of anything worse than some social entity claiming that my affection for my
children has a nefarious intent. It is really a common tragedy, alas - so much
so that I see associate Fathers whose daughters just don't get balanced
affinity from their parents. Yes, it is a thing, and it is a sad state of
affairs.

My boys get hugs and kisses regardless. Love shouldn't have to be defended
from others, but alas PDA for children is a huge social issue in modern
America - and England too, I have noticed. In some ways, our societies are
terribly pornographic.

~~~
ScottBurson
A couple of years ago I was in a waiting room at a medical clinic. There was a
family of three there, a man, a woman, and (I presume) their daughter. The
daughter was approaching teenage; she must have been 12 or 13 -- so, not a
young child. I was struck by how casually affectionate she was with her
father, even at that age sitting on his lap and being held. It was enough to
make me wonder if something untoward was going on between them, but I'd be the
first to agree that my having that thought says more about me than about them.
Really there wasn't anything in their manner that suggested anything except
that they loved each other.

I don't know if I could be as un-self-conscious with a daughter, at that age,
in public. And that troubles me.

Good for you for not letting the SJWs get to you.

~~~
ScottBurson
Downvotes??? ... Oh, I see, it's because I followed the parent in using the
abbreviation "SJW". It's not one I normally use; I will avoid it in future.

 _However._ I have read in the news about parents being _arrested_ for
allowing their children -- 9- and 10-year-olds, not young children -- to play
unsupervised, or (in one case) to hang out at a mall while their parent was at
a job interview there, for what some busybody thought was too long. 50 years
ago, one could never have imagined the police being called -- or if they had
been called, actually _arresting the parent_ \-- in such a situation. Whatever
label one puts on it, there has been a change in American culture that I think
is not entirely salutary. Protecting children is important, but people are
jumping to conclusions that are not actually warranted by the facts and
nuances of the situation.

~~~
jacquesm
In Canada we were warned not to leave our kid (9 years old) unsupervised at
the house because it would be considered abandonment. I'm so lucky I didn't
grow up in a place like that. By the time we were 6 and 4 my sister and I
would take care of ourselves until mom came home from work. This included
getting dressed, going to school, going back in the aftenoon. I don't remember
a time when I didn't have a key to the house to let myself in when there was
nobody home.

~~~
DanBC
You don't recognise the survivor bias? You don't think that leaving a six year
old in charge of a four year old is irresponsible and dangerous?

Ideally the "rule" is a guideline, and is only ever used as part of a package
of information to protect children (who are by definition vulnerable).

So "left young children alone" gets at most a friendly chat with some advice
about home safety, while "left children at home alone" combined with "arrested
for drunk and disorderly" and "arrested for solicitation and drug possession"
gets a friendly chats combined with targetted drug and alcohol rehab.

It's weird that CPS bother taken action in these cases. They're so busy with
other cases where the need is unambiguously there.

~~~
jacquesm
> You don't recognise the survivor bias? You don't think that leaving a six
> year old in charge of a four year old is irresponsible and dangerous?

Yes, it's absolutely terrible. But when you're a single mom and you have to go
out and make a living it helps if you raise your kids in a way that teaches
them to take responsibility from an early age.

My sister and I never thought this was 'dangerous', we walked hand-in-hand to
school, crossed at the lights like were were taught to and never were late or
went missing.

For sure the world was safer back then, today it may not be possible to live
like this but I'm pretty happy that we had the experience of being trusted
with some responsibility from an early age onward.

The survivor bias is non-existent, there were tons of kids like us back then
and I don't recall any of them that didn't make it because of being unable to
walk home from school or being home for an hour or two un-attended.

~~~
DanBC
> For sure the world was safer back then, today it may not be possible to live
> like this but I'm pretty happy that we had the experience of being trusted
> with some responsibility from an early age onward.

The world was more dangerous back then.

There was more crime. Products were less safe (eg cars were more likely to
kill pedestrians in accidents) etc.

> The survivor bias is non-existent,

The person most likely to harm your child is your other child. While the
numbers are tricky we think sibling sexual abuse is about 5 times more common
than paternal sexual abuse in the US. (This is from reported figures. There's
a lot of attention on paternal abuse, there's not much attention of sibling
sexual abuse, so we think that sibling abuse is less reported than paternal
abuse even though they're both under-reported).

In the UK one in twenty children have been sexually abused.
[http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-
neg...](http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-
neglect/child-sexual-abuse/sexual-abuse-facts-statistics/) it's unfeasable
that none of the tons of kids like you were unaffected by this, or were not
neglected to the level of abuse.

~~~
jacquesm
Indeed, that's unfeasible. But if you start reasoning like that the best way
to prevent children from sexual abuse is to simply not have children at all.
After all _some of them_ will surely be victims at some point.

I'm not a big fan of the nanny state, I think life is full of risks and if you
arrange society in such a way that all the risks are gone you will squeeze the
life out of it as well. It's a hard balance to get right but I feel that going
overboard on the protective side is not the answer.

~~~
DanBC
"Don't leave six year olds in charge of four year olds" is going overboard?

------
locacorten
About 40 years ago, when I was growing up in Southeastern Europe, in a place
greatly influenced by both the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires, I do remember
my grandma lying down in bed (covered) with one-two of her girlfriends after
having lunch, coffee, and a cigarette. They were fully clothed and they
continued chatting while lying on top of a made bed. The men were all gone to
work during the day.

Such a behavior would raise an eyebrow in the US, but it was completely normal
in that corner of the world at the time.

~~~
ig1
Such behaviour would be perfectly normal in the UK at the present time as
well. Are you sure it would raise an eye-brow in the US ?

~~~
WalterSear
It wouldn't.

------
sago
> they ate every day at the same table ... and at night their beds did not
> separate them

That doesn't read to me like a statement that they shared a bed, necessarily
(though I acknowledge that, even if they did share a bed, it wouldn't be
sexually suggestive). I read it as "they sat up all night and didn't go to
bed".

Other gay icons from a slightly creative historical reading: King David and
Jonathan from the bible.

------
mmaunder
We live in a time where we constantly extrapolate behaviors and it has some
unfortunate consequences. An adult male who is friendly to a child in a park
conjures up immediate and specific fears. Men holding hands in the streets of
Tanzania is a source of fascination for tourists. Men kissing each other on
the mouth in South Western France suggests something specific for visitors.

In the English speaking west we are evolving into a world of behavioral taboos
because so many behaviors are seen as heuristics that identify us as
something.

As Nigel Havers said to Christian Bale's character in Empire of the Sun:
Perhaps we should "try not to think so much".

------
lexcorvus
Physical displays of affection among men is more common in cultures where such
displays aren't likely to be misinterpreted as sexual in nature. For example,
it's common in Saudi Arabia for men to hold hands and even kiss:

[https://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/b...](https://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bush-
holds-hands-11-9-10.png?w=455)

[http://upload.democraticunderground.com/top10/09/362_kiss1.j...](http://upload.democraticunderground.com/top10/09/362_kiss1.jpg)

------
xorblurb
There might be a pb in English with the term "sleeping with", given that it
completely implies not its literal meaning.

Because of that, it seems that it's quite difficult to describe sleeping with
someone without having sex (and without any intent to) if I believe:
[http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148323/is-
there-a...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148323/is-there-a-non-
sexual-phrase-for-sleeping-with-someone)

It would be interesting to study the interaction between the language and the
behaviour in this case.

~~~
leoc
> Because of that, it seems that it's quite difficult to describe sleeping
> with someone without having sex (and without any intent to) if I believe:
> [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148323/is-
> there-a...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148323/is-there-a..).

There is such a term: to be bedfellows. But the practise is so uncommon these
days that many living English speakers only think of it as metaphorical
expression.

------
w8rbt
Perhaps this is nitpicking, but the Bible does not mention three wise men
anywhere. It does state that wise men gave Jesus three gifts.

 __ _" And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with
Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened
their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and
myrrh."_ __\- Matthew Chapter 2

[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-
Chapter-2/](http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-2/)

Scholars think that there were actually hundreds of wise men who brought the
gifts.

~~~
carlob
I think the number three comes from the three gifts which are explicitly
listed in Luke: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

~~~
pmjordan
That seems a likely explanation. It seems unlikely that there were actually
only 3 magi, considering the bible's obsession with numbers even in places
where it's unlikely that the number is accurate. It seems to me the authors
would have leapt at the opportunity of putting a 3 in there, had they seen
fit.

------
charlescearl
These are social constructions. In an African country (no name mentioned, But
close to South Africa), it was/is not unusual to see men holding hands walking
down the road. In this country the same two hypothetical men would be
considered homophobic by U.S. standards. Gender roles identities are always
modulated by time and place.

~~~
justinator
India as well, although India is also generally seen as homophobic [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India)

------
mirimir
> they ate every day at the same table ... and at night their beds did not
> separate them

I'm guessing that Philip and Richard were sharing female sexual partners.

~~~
contingencies
This sounds quite likely. After all, how much entertainment was there back
then once you'd got drunk in a courtly setting with mistresses and dismissed
the lutes? Surely sharing part of the regal harem was de-facto normal! One
could assume all out orgies without retiring to bechambers were feasibly
frequent since lewd behavior was unlikely to be questioned or reported in a
totalitarian / death-for-criticism political environment.

------
tbrownaw
Why is one particular aspect of sexual preference singled out as (1) being
ingrained from birth, rather than developing during childhood like _every
other aspect_ ; and (2) necessarily being a core part of everyone's personal
identity?

~~~
jeremyt
"developing during childhood like every other aspect"

This just keeps being repeated, as if it's fact, but it's just not true. In
fact, it's less true than the opposite conclusion.

It's been shown, repeatedly that toy preference, conflict resolution style,
gender identity, and now even the genetic programming of the immune system are
very different between the sexes, and exist at birth.

I'm not aware of any reason to believe sexual preference doesn't fall into the
same bucket. In fact, wasn't this the entire basis of the gay rights movement?

The literature is extensive, and I don't have time to list all the references
at the moment, but here's a couple to start off with:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-
fundamen...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-
fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys)

For further reading, you can browse through "The Optimistic Child" by Doctor
Martin Seligman.

~~~
jacalata
>n fact, wasn't this the entire basis of the gay rights movement?

No, the basis for the gay rights movement was that being gay is not a
justification for denying someone regular human rights. There are some people
who only conditionally agree with this, if being gay is a way you are born and
have no choice in it. There are other people who think it is repugnant to
suggest that it is only ok for someone to be gay if they can't help it.

------
return0
I m more interested on why (mostly straight) people _today_ are so concerned
about how others perceive their sexuality , i.e. the "no homo" appendix, both
in the real world and online. In none of the stories presented was the
sexuality of the participants stated or written. I presume it's because they
actually didn't care, or didnt consider it noteworthy.

~~~
mrxd
Because people who are (perceived as) gay are targets of discrimination and
violence.

~~~
beaner
Also if the opposite sex thinks you're gay but you're straight, it's harder to
attract them.

~~~
lotsofcows
That's not strictly the case although it does complicate things somewhat...

