Is moon tea just an excuse for Martin to have "modern" sexually liberated women in his series?

[total1402]

I'am sure I remember on my degree course it being mentioned several times that there simply was no means of birth control in the Early Modern Period or Middle Ages; infanticide excepting which you find listed on church records. It does seem as though he wanted his female characters (Asha n Arriane especially) to be sexually liberated in the modern sense when, really, they wouldn't have access to birth control to prevent having bastards and could also catch STDs. Which is not a modern phenomena in the slightest, images of sexual diseases like syphilis were strongly associated in art with sexually uninhibited women like prostitutes and was part of the reason for immense social prejudice against this behaviour. I mean the period I studied, 1700-1815, most people married in their mid twenties and given the absence of illegitimate children, or pregnant women being married relative to population, its likely most of the population was celebate until marriage. Whilst in Westeros, its pretty clear that everybody is at it and even most peasants seem quite glib about being with multiple sexual partners. I suppose this does make the book more readable and relatable to the audiences. It also allows him to highlight the series bawdiness versus traditional fantasy which avoids sexual issues. But its not realistic because he invented a widely available and reliable means of birth control in the middle ages; when really this didn't happen until I think the 20th century. He also hasn't considered the role STDs would play in people being averse to having sex with multiple partners.

[butterbumps!]

I'am sure I remember on my degree course it being mentioned several times that there simply was no means of birth control in the Early Modern Period or Middle Ages; infanticide excepting which you find listed on church records. It does seem as though he wanted his female characters to be sexually liberated in the modern sense when, really, they wouldn't have access to birth control to prevent having bastards and could also catch STDs. Which is not a modern phenomena in the slightest, images of sexual diseases like syphilis were strongly associated in art with sexually uninhibited women like prostitutes and was part of the reason for immense social prejudice against this behaviour. I mean the period I studied, 1700-1815, most people married in their mid twenties and given the absence of illegitimate children or pregnant women being married relative to population its likely most of the population was celebate until marriage.

:lmao: And babies come from storks.

The Ancient Greeks had herbal abortificants. I think Pennyroyal Tea is one such. There were also spermicides and the like. Physical abortion techniques have also existed for a very long time.

[Free Northman]

I agree with the OP. The consequences of liberal sexual attitudes are conveniently circumvented by Martin. As I've said before, Tyrion, Arianne, Asha, Daario Naharis and now Daenerys should all be infested with a host of sexual diseases.

And the convenience of Moon Tea absolutely undermines the most important reason why primitive sexual liberation was not a good idea.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

:lmao: And babies come from storks.

They don't? :eek:

Seriously though, while abortificants were known, Moon Tea does work very neatly, seemingly no side effects and still super effective and all. This neatness is probably no coincidence but one of the number of devices GRRM has included in order to let him employ modern plot and character dynamics that otherwise might not be totally plausible without some tediousness. The pill Moon tea is one of them, allowing for a more liberated portrayal of the characters. Telegraphy The Ravens are another. They prevent the plot from becoming either too fragmented or too focussed on waiting until the characters find out what is going on.

[butterbumps!]

They don't? :eek:

Seriously though, while abortificants were known, Moon Tea does work very neatly, seemingly no side effects and still super effective and all. This neatness is probably no coincidence but one of the number of devices GRRM has included in order to let him employ plot and character dynamics that otherwise might not be totally plausible. The pill Moon tea is one of them, allowing for a more liberated portrayal of the characters. Telegraphy The Ravens are another. They prevent the plot from becoming either too fragmented or too focussed on waiting until the characters find out what is going on.

I don't disagree with the neatness of Moon Tea (though it seems Lysa suffered side effects with the Tansy), or the fact that STDs are non-existant in ASOIAF, both of which are not real-world accurrate.

However, the OP states that there was no way to prevent pregnancy before modern times due to the categorical lack of methods aside from abstinence and infanticide. Which is completely wrong. The Middle Ages were a pretty ribald time, there were pregnant brides at their weddings, people have always had tons of sex in marriage and without. I think the main difference is just the safeness of Martin's "teas."

[total1402]

:lmao: And babies come from storks.

In England the local parishes provided poor law relief and needed to register people for taxation purposes. Because of this it was a relatively complete list of the population including marriages, illegitimate children and such. If all people were having unprotected sex before they married in their teens then there would be a lot more bastards than there actually were. This is something my uni lecturer stood up and when asked was pretty magnanamous that there wasn't really any means of abortion during the 18th century. He then showed us a graph which showed marriage and illegitimacy rates in London which supported this. Even in Chruchs known to cater for illicit marriages the rate was very low for women showing up pregnant at their wedding; 10-15% I think or thereabouts. Granted, this is a post puritan age and I think I also read that the appearence of diseases like syphilis just after the middle ages was a main reason for this sexual puritanism devloping; therefore implying things were more liberated in the middle ages.

But yes, I distinctly remember my university lecturer being asked this question about brith control and saying no.

[GallowsKnight]

No. The ancient Roman's had a plant similar to fennel that could be used as an abortificant. They ended up driving it to extinction with use.

Recent studies have shown that despite popular sex ed teaching coitus interruptus (withdrawal method) when properly done is far more effective than condoms or contraceptive pills. The reason it's discouraged is because it has a high human error failure rate as many men can't control themselves. This is mentioned in the Bible itself (Onan).

We do hear of a pox (syphillis) infected prostitute but it seems the majority of our STIs aren't around in Westeros and Essos. I

But even in the past people were having sex like crazy.

Edit: Also we see a biased slice. Mainly high lords who have the time to get up to sexy mischief. There's certainly millions of of smallfolk who marry the girl next door going on to sire a dozen kids,

[danm_999]

The Romans had a plant called silphium which later became extinct that was used as an abortificant, and pennyroyal tea has been around forever, so it's not like moon tea is something Martin dreamed up that's got no historical basis.

In terms of disease, seriously nasty STI's are mostly post middle ages. HIV originated in the 1980s, syphilis came from North America when the Spanish and French began colonising it after Columbus, hep B first was noticed in the late nineteenth century, HPV was first noticed in the twentieth century, etc. Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages you mostly dealt with herpes and gonorrhea, and ASOIAF has the pox, so it's not really radically different.

[butterbumps!]

In England the local parishes provided poor law relief and needed to register people for taxation purposes. Because of this it was a relatively complete list of the population including marriages, illegitimate children and such. If all people were having unprotected sex before they married in their teens then there would be a lot more bastards than there actually were.

A lack of illegitimate babies does not logically lead to the conclusion that people did not have sex. There are a lot of ways to not get pregnant, but for heaven's sake, people have never not had sex for fun. It's a really faulty (and somewhat naive) conclusion to draw from this. Additionally to "after the fact" methods you claim do not exist, there's also the rhythm method, pulling out, pearl necklacing (that one is for you, Lummel, in case you're around).

I don't want to push this next part too far, since it might be unintentional, but there's a slightly disconcerting undertone in your posts that seems to point to the idea of female sexual liberation as historically unjustified, while promoting female chasteness. I don't know if you mean to justify the lack of female sexual liberation historically, but I wanted to bring the tone issue to you attention in case it wasn't intentional.

[idler]

In England the local parishes provided poor law relief and needed to register people for taxation purposes. Because of this it was a relatively complete list of the population including marriages, illegitimate children and such. If all people were having unprotected sex before they married in their teens then there would be a lot more bastards than there actually were. This is something my uni lecturer stood up and when asked was pretty magnanamous that there wasn't really any means of abortion during the 18th century. He then showed us a graph which showed marriage and illegitimacy rates in London which supported this. Even in Chruchs known to cater for illicit marriages the rate was very low for women showing up pregnant at their wedding; 10-15% I think or thereabouts. Granted, this is a post puritan age and I think I also read that the appearence of diseases like syphilis just after the middle ages was a main reason for this sexual puritanism; therefore implying things were more liberated in the middle ages.

"Pater semper incertus est", and there was rarely the possibility to identify someone as bastard for sure (unless Ned brings some boy home from his campaign.)

I think Martin loves his bastards. Mankind will die off by either AIDS or by use of condoms anyway. You make the choice. :love:

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

We do hear of a pox (syphillis) infected prostitute but it seems the majority of our STIs aren't around in Westeros and Essos.

True. And Merrett Frey caught a pox from a camp follower, and Daeron Targaryen died of a pox he caught from a whore.

It seems like STD's are definitely around.

[Quentyn Baratheon]

There was brevage for this, but they were VERY dangerous. Abortion techniques and brevages were called "les funestes secrets" (dark secrets would be the translation I think) in Middle Aged France.

[GallowsKnight]

ASOIAF has the pox, so it's not really radically different.

Big pox was the name for syphilis so it could be that.

[Lummel]

I am around.

The romans also made reuseable condoms from lengths of sheeps gut and practised abortion (see Ovid Ars Amatoria passim). I find the lecturer's comment with regard to Britain 1700-1815 more than a little odd - why did he think that Corums Field foundlings hospital was set up in the middle of the 18th century if not to cater for abandoned children?

[danm_999]

Big pox was the name for syphilis so it could be that.

It seems like "pox" is a conflation of several real world STIs. Sometimes it's deadly, sometimes it's just annoying, sometimes it's something that means you need to scrub a whore's vagina out with lye.

[The Drunkard]

The romans also made reuseable condoms from lengths of sheeps gut and practised abortion (see Ovid Ars Amatoria passim).

:stillsick:

[total1402]

A lack of illegitimate babies does not logically lead to the conclusion that people did not have sex. There are a lot of ways to not get pregnant, but for heaven's sake, people have never not had sex for fun. It's a really faulty (and somewhat naive) conclusion to draw from this. Additionally to "after the fact" methods you claim do not exist, there's also the rhythm method, pulling out, pearl necklacing (that one is for you, Lummel, in case you're around).

I don't want to push this next part too far, since it might be unintentional, but there's a slightly disconcerting undertone in your posts that seems to point to the idea of female sexual liberation as historically unjustified, while promoting female chasteness. I don't know if you mean to justify the lack of female sexual liberation historically, but I wanted to bring the tone issue to you attention in case it wasn't intentional.

What? No, I never said or implied that. STDs discouraged both sexes having mutliple partner sex, until the invention of reliable contraceptives. The amount of "blame" or emphasis placed on women by artists such as Hogarth on sexually uninhibited women was a cultural bias of the time which goes back to the Bible Adam/Eve thing. But fundamentally it was not a good idea to have unprotected sex then as it is now for both sexes. Women and their bastards were also unfairly treated. A man could get away with being with another woman. But if a woman had a child on her own it was taken that she was wanton and would not make a good wife; such cheating threatened inheritence of property. It was also very difficult for women to find stable employment at this time for a host of discriminatory reasons; meaning being a single mother was a lot more difficult than it was now. The society these people lived in was cruel, unfair and remorseless to women. In that context, without deep social change, it would not have been prudent to be sexually liberated with a man who could well just abandon you when you were pregnant; especially since most men also lacked stable employment n were loathe to support illegitimate children. Thats not a jsutification of the times. Those times were barbaric and cruel. But its easy to understand why women would not have desired to be sexually liberated when the risks to their health and standing were collossal; as well as inherently biased compared to men who lacked such discrimination. I think I remember it being mentioned that the mothers of bastards also had their poor relief removed and were labelled as whores by most of society.

[GallowsKnight]

sometimes it's something that means you need to scrub a whore's vagina out with lye.

*Shudders* Having seen a hydroxide burn I can clearly say there's never a time where you have to scrub out anyone's vaigina with lye.

[Lummel]

:stillsick:

yeah, rinse and reuse.

[SeanF]

The absence of STD's is unusual.

That aside, there was plenty of sex outside marriage in medieval societies, and plenty of illegitimate children (particularly fathered by the nobility).

In the real Medieval world, (as in Westeros) there was a double-standard, in that unchastity among women was considered much worse than unchastity among men. But, it was common enough. And royalty and nobility could pretty well make up their own rules as they went along. Stories about courtly love essentially glorified adulterous love, on the part of both lords and ladies. Dany, Arianne, the Sand Snakes, Gatehouse Ami, Asha, Lady Dustin would have been quite at home in the Courts of fifteenth and sixteenth century Italy for example.

Actually, I'll qualify that by saying that if Dany had been the ruler of an Italian city State, she'd have been criticised for taking a low-born lover, Daario, but not for taking a high-born one.