From: greg@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose))
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: consort gender
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:12:18 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Hossein Ali Qomi send greetings and
prayers for the blessings of Allah.

After my original two postings, I had thought to leave this thread alone.
However, as the level of vituperation has varied monotonically with the
level of ignorance (positively sloped, I fear), I'll make one more stab at it.

When the issue of same-sex consorts was most recently raised, I posted the
results of some extensive research into medieval royal practice, which
indicated that same-sex consorts simply did not exist in the Middle Ages.

The response to this was to say, basically, "bugger documentation and history,
we want to play by twentieth century American liberal rules."

I, then, posted a response indicating that there were two options:

	1.  A society based on the documented practice of the Middle Ages,
	where the decision-rule was objective historical evidence;
	2.  A society based on anybody's arbitrary notion of what's fair,
	liberated, etc., where the decision-rule was either x's prejudices
	prevail or anything goes.

My lady, Angharad, and others then followed with discussion of the merits of
these two decision rules.

In this discussion, my lady posted:

>>this: our fantasies are ultimately solitary things; it is the history
>>as much as the ideals that holds us together.   We may want to think
>>about that before applying too readily the rule that "We've already got
>>bunches of inauthenticities; what's five or six more?"

Thom Watson, the Elf-Lad, replied:

>It's easy to say this when one is a straight man, and not even required
>to portray a peasant. The more truly historical the society is, the 
>better off such a person would be. Personally I'd prefer an atmosphere 
>where all people have equal value and equal opportunity.
>
>It's also interesting to note that all the posters who support the
>current situation vis a vis same sex consorts have been male and,
>presumably, heterosexual, the very group that holds the most 
>privilege under more stringent applications of historical accuracy.

It appears, Mr. Watson, that you are as unfamiliar with Welsh onomastics
as you are with the rest of the Middle Ages.  Angharad is a _woman's_
name and the poster was female.

I, however, am a heterosexual male.  I will never win a Crown Tourney.  I
have _no_ vested interested in Crown Tourneys save historical recreation.
I oppose adamantinely any revision of Corpora's prohibition of same-sex
consorts precisely because I refuse to concede the SCA and its customs to
the arbitrary whims of twentieth-century ideological zealots like yourself.
I will defer instantly to anyone who makes a better _historical_ argument,
I will not not concede anything whatsoever to high-handed, modern dictates
of historically ignorant persons who tell me "how the Middle Ages should
have been."  In mundane life I absolutely support the extension of the full
gamut of civil rights to all persons regardless of sexual orientation, but
the SCA is not mundane life.  If we are to have any integrity whatsoever,
it is a function of the authenticity of our historical recreation.  If it
wasn't done in the Middle Ages, we shouldn't do it at events nor license it
in Corpora.  It's a matter of principle, not just a goddamned slogan, which
is a stake here.

In Service to the Society,

Hossein Ali Qomi/Gregory F. Rose
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca