Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:39:20 -0400 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Same Sex Consorts

Good gentles --

I've been following the 'same sex consorts' thread for some time now
and I've got a question and an observation.  First the question.

If people who have no particular interest, romantically, in each other
can serve as sovereign and consort -- why do we still cling to the
notion of one's consort being the 'inspiration' that spurs the
winning fighter on to victory?  

(The person who referred to the 'rule of courtly love' that said you 
can't _really_ love your spouse may be providing one sort of answer...
But let's face it, _many_ royal pairings are matters of convenience, 
not 'inspiration.')

The Board of Directors and Corpora don't seem to care about how one
is 'inspired' to win a Crown or Coronet -- they just want a biologically
human male and a biologically human female as sovereign and consort or
vice versa.  The romantic 'ideal' doesn't figure into their calculations.

The most telling argument in *favor* of making the change to allow
same-sex consorts *is* based on 'inspiration' (not a bad thing, in
my mind).  If I ever got in shape enough to be a threat in such a
tourney I could never see myself serving as King or Prince with
anyone other than my lady by my side.  I can see how those whose
partners are the same sex would not care to enter Crowns and 
Coronets if they were forced to compromise in their selection.

Certainly, the SCA would 'survive' gay and lesbian pairs on the
thrones just as we've 'survived' women on the battlefield and
Board members from places other than California.  Striking out
a few words would be all it takes to 'fix' the problem.  

The observation I'd like to share is that we seem to have two
'camps' -- one advocating laissez-faire "anything goes" recreation,
the other advocating a more 'strict construction' that tries hard
to hold the Society to period models whenever possible.  Arval, I
believe, has it right when he asserts:

 > We do not rigidly adhere to medieval evidence in all things, nor 
 > do we ignore medieval evidence in all things.  We choose.  We 
 > re-create the parts of medieval history which appeal to us.  
 > We add modern elements as necessary to ensure our enjoyment 
 > of the game.

That observation begs the question -- HOW DO WE CHOOSE?

 PROCESS
 o What are the dynamics of our decision-making/selection process?

 CRITERIA
 o What are the varied weights assigned to historical accuracy vs.
    modern elements?

 STRUCTURE
 o What social structures/norm-building and norm-enforcing educate
    and 'protect' the traditions of the Society?  (Or are we _so_
    laissez-faire we _don't_ do any norm-enforcing?) 

 VARIATION-DISSEMINATION
 o How are choices (often made in restricted geographic areas) spread 
    across the Society?  What controls 'fit' between choice & locale?

I'll look forward to your comments and further observations.
A certain someone needs to be fed...

Take good care -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..." 


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca