To return to the original point, droit de seigneur is a myth.
The standard work on the subject is now Alain Boureau, The Lord’s First Night: the myth of the droit de cuissage (University of Chicago Press, 1998).
Wait you mean to tell me that movies aren’t always telling the truth? I’ve been living a lie.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**I’m visualizing my teenage daughter on her wedding night to, say, the village blacksmith, looking forward to being deflowered by the local lord. Is she thinking, “Gee, this is great–I’ll get to see the inside of the Big House, plus my baby will have better teeth!”? **
[QUOTE]
You live in a village with a blacksmith? Maybe you should move out to a suburb, then you won’t have to worry about your daughter’s baby having better teeth.
woops, messed up the vb code.
I won’t quibble on the “use of prostitutes”, but I do have to nitpick on the extremely interesting assertion of Scottish/English medieval polygamy. In a word, “Huh?”
Or was that in a movie, too?
P.S. Steeljaw, LOL, even through the farkled vB! 
Most pure breed dogs seem to have the most health problems. It is the mixed breed “mutt” which seems to be the most resilient. Could this be the same for humans? It is just another consideration why “royal” bloodlines may need to be cleansed.
Steve, purebreed dogs have more health problems than mutts because the way you get a “pure breed” is through inbreeding. That is not yet another reason, that is one already mentioned by Chronos.
Now, what is all this talk about good teeth? Anyone seen the teeth of the British royalty? The Brits are not known for their extensive dental practices.
Like Irish people’s teeth are better. Have you seen that guy from The Pogues?
And all of this stuff about teeth forgets that if you live in an area with water that has naturally occuring flouride, you gonna get pretty good teeth, whether you brush them or not. If you live in an area without, you can brush em every night, and still have a mouth that can pick up radio free europe from all your visits to the dentist.
Yeah. I know. This has nothing to do with the OP. Sue me.
Steve, purebreed dogs have more health problems than mutts because the way you get a “pure breed” is through inbreeding. That is not yet another reason, that is one already mentioned by Chronos.
Irishman, I realize Chronos mentioned it already. The point I intended to make is that it is yet another example…or another way to describe it, “purebreed” and “royalty”. I guess I just wasn’t being clear in saying what I mean, LOL.
I know it doesn’t sound morally elevated (as far as their partners were concerned) but what is so wrong with the idea of medieval “droit de seigneur” women as would-be designers of babies with good teeth? The same thing today is called genetic engineering. Women probably have a need for their babies to be seen as assets to society. Recognising women as technologists of any sort is surely a good thing. It’s scary how few women are involved in science or technology. Women seem destined to always be on the user-end of machinery created by men which puts them in danger of extinction as far as I’m concerned. The theory that men will become redundant is surely highly suspect.
G.Nome
Read the column, there was no “droit de seigneur.”
These supposed babies would not have been recognized by the noble fathers, therefore receiving no benefit.Bastards were not a status symbol, even of high birth.
Choosing a mate of higher station assures the child more resources, not better genes.
Carefully choosing a mate isn’t comparable to genetic engineering.
Women will never be extinct. The arguments against this are too numerous to list.
Considering that both my mother and my sister are in technology, along with quite a few female posters on this board, maybe you should give women in technology (and in general) more credit.
Well, I give women credit in so far as I am one. It must be because I’m a liberal feminist or something that I come out sounding like Al Bundy and in keeping with this I would like to mention beavers and blow-up dolls. Something I remember reading about in an ancient Time magazine was the “artifactual theory”. It was about the possibility of humans becoming extinct when they can no longer manufacture and control the goods they need to survive. Someone had tried to prove this theory by removing the ability of beavers to construct dams. The beavers apparently died out.
Technologists today are busily constructing a “black box” world which creates a form of impotency in 65% of the human race. In this regard science is almost a form of eugenics - maybe only those with science degrees are supposed to survive. And a woman with a science degree will survive I suppose. No, I’m not the Unabomber’s accomplice and that stash of old Omnis in the garage means nothing.
I read Cecil Adams’ column - I just feel free to comment without gushing. Look how long that Evil Nazi Groundhog thing is - does that have more meaning? Only if it’s cruelty to animals you’re looking for.
Blow-up dolls: On a programme called Sex TV I saw an article on some guys in California who were manufacturing hyper-real life-size women mannequins. Maybe it should have been called the Age of Spiritual Sex Toys or something. It looked like they had the future well taken care of - for them anyway.
In terms of inbreeding, royal families have had major problems… the famous hemophilia of the Romanoffs, for instance.
Not sure what all this has to do with “droit de seigneur”, but…
G. Nome, what advantage would a mideival woman see in a baby sired by nobility? Before the notion of genetics? Hmm, there was some concept of breeding, so it’s not entirely far fetched to think they may have seen some preceived quality in the lineage. But without the financial ties nor the access to the better conditions, it wouldn’t mean much. And as we’ve shown, the better genetics argument is not validated.
Is is possible it could be an excuse to explain a lack of virginity? Well, I’ve seen that as an explanation for why Mary claimed Jesus was the son of God. “Well you see Joseph, I was visited by an angel.”
Okay, so there was no historical first night. Guess all of these speculations are pointless.
Regarding humanity dying out after forgetting how to build and repair technology, that is an idea that has been explored in science fiction many times. Try “The Time Machine” - the Eloi and the … (stupid faulty memory). I’ve seen several books that bring in computer control of society with no human involvement and controlled breeding leading to decay of society and eventual breakdown, with the heroic couple being left to save humanity. With variations.
Don’t know about beavers.
Regarding the sex mannequins you mention, I’ve heard of them. They’re called “Real Dolls”, and their lifelike simulations of women, not inflatables (making that clear for the others). Pretty strange.
That fact that the world is turning feudal once more is taken for granted by some people. That it will consist of a mass of illiterate Sega games-playing serfs in thrall to computer barons is a semi-accurate description of their theories. So, seeing the first night thing in a modern context may not be so ridiculous. A girl with little finance and few opportunities gets to spend a night at the Gates/Ellison mansion, gets a copy of Millennium Windows and free medical care for life. It’s all probably in the x-rated version of Das Capital (or a film starring Robert Redford). My first-night theory always has a positive- effects component.
As for inbreeding causing physical defects, is that always going to happen? What about the Pitcairn Islanders? They are all descended from two or three 18th Century British sailors and a very small group of island women. They have no physical defects. That’s not to say outbreeding isn’t a very good thing (hence the incest taboo) and if droit de seigneuring was a chance for that to happen, so be it.
You don’t have a theory G. Nome.
First, as has been repeatedly stated, the “first night” bizo is just a myth.
Second, even if weren’t, it would not have a place in any sensible evolutionary story. Evolutionary Psychology is NOT the same as gross functionalism. Only if a cultural practice were (near) universal across cultures and very long-lasting would it be appropriate to suppose that it is an evolutionary strategy.
The standard approach is to show that a particular practice is present in our best estimations of hunter-gatherer societies. Feudal society is greatly removed from those circumstances, and no evolutionary “strategy” could legitimately be seen even if the practice existed at all.
As for memes, you’d better be a lot snappier if you want to stay in the pool.
picmr
Windows ME? I thought that the idea was to reward the girl, not punish her… Besides, the best OS on the market is already being given away for free; does Linus Torvald get all the babes?
“As for memes, you’d better be a lot snappier if you want to stay in the pool”
I finally get it. In DOPE world this means: There is a POOL and it is full of water. WATER: a clear transparent colourless liquid. If I want to remain suspended in this STILL BODY OF WATER I should demonstrate a greater degree of the quality of SNAP, acting in a smart, fashionable and polished manner. This entails wearing all-over protective clothing with a good label. Well, it’s always sensible isn’t it?
G. Nome said
What little I know about genetics, I learned on the internet. But what I learned is that, assuming you are right about the Pitcairners not having any physical defect (site?), it could be because they are from two different races, caucasian and polynesian. This evidently makes the offspring stronger, as opposed to the inbreeding that would have occurred in Europe.
So, probably not a good example.