From: thom@access.digex.com (The Elf-Lad)
Subject: Re: consort gender
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:03:54 GMT

jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter) writes:

>The rules say that the person fighting crown and the consort must be of 
>opposite physical gender.  Yes, this means that there are couples that
>can't rule together (lots of them -- and it is worth bearing in mind that
>even among heterosexuals, many ruling couples are friends rather than
>sexually-involved pairs, and some _heterosexuals_ might rather rule with a

What does sexual involvement have to do with it? Is this part of the
general assumption that the relationships of gay people are predicated
only on sex? The point is that a gay man or woman in the SCA is more
likely to hold to the courtly ideal espoused in this thread when fighting
for and inspired by a member of the same sex. 

>same sex friend than an opposite sex one; so the ruled-out couples are
>not limited by sexual preference), though there is no one in the SCA who
>can't rule as part of some couple.  I don't see this restriction as 
>necessarily homophobic, any more than it is "arts phobic" to insist that 
>at least one of the couple must fight well enough to win a Crown Tourney.

Well, it is, but that's another thread :)

>Hey, why don't we give up garb too, and everything else that has 
>anything to do with the middle ages or renaissance, and just get together 
>and party down?  Are we to have _nothing_ except a choice of party 
>companions in common?  There are many inaccuracies in what we do; and
>we can't hope to eliminate them all, and it's not clear that we'd
>want to.  But the more we divorce our most central symbols from anything
>that has any medieval or renaissance analog, the more we cut into what
>little common ground we have.

This is a straw man, much like the one of which you accused me. I
have hardly suggested that we give up everything in period.
But where do we draw the lines, and why do we seem more willing to 
allow things like rattan and duct tape--mere "things" that are 
readily tolerated--than important issues like feelings,
compassion, tolerance? I received e-mail from someone who suggested
that he'd be happier and the society be better off (because it
would be more period) if women *weren't* allowed to fight; would you
support this? If not, why not? Why then draw the line at supporting
the rights of gay people to rule with their chosen consorts?

>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?"

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.

-- 
Thom Watson, the Elf-Lad         elf-lad@access.digex.com <-----preferred
                                 elf-lad@aol.com         elflad0@glib.org
                                 thom.watson@p924.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org
                                 GEmail=T.WATSON7