New Worlds: A Bit on the Side

(This post is part of my Patreon-supported New Worlds series.)

In theory, most cultures agree that once you marry a person (or persons), you’re not supposed to sleep around outside of that bond.

In practice . . .

Adultery happens a lot, even in situations where the penalties for it are dire. We’re kind of a randy species overall; while individual drives vary, straying is a temptation for many. When it comes to the cultural level of how permissible this is, though, and how we as a society respond to it — well, the elephant in the room is the howling double standard between the sexes.

Women often face much more significant consequences for adultery than men do. When inheritance is patrilineal, it’s very important to know which guy sired a given kid; when power is patriarchal, women are (literally or figuratively) the property of their husbands, and infidelity is a slap in the face of men’s power. If divorce is permitted at all, then unfaithfulness is usually the #1 reason a man is allowed to get rid of his wife. In many places and times, nobody would so much as blink at him beating her; in others, she might be the victim of what we euphemistically call an “honor killing,” aka societally-sanctioned murder. (Though honor killings are not limited to cases of adultery. Rape victims are killed for the same reason, as are others who are seen as dishonoring their families. Including men, though much less often.)

Men are rarely held to the same standard. Sometimes women have the legal right to divorce their husbands for infidelity, but not always — and even if they do, they may face significant pressure to forgive his “mistake.” Elite men in particular have often gotten away with keeping mistresses as a matter of course, something their wives are expected to turn a blind eye to. Maybe the husbands are supposed to be discreet about it, not flaunting a mistress in public . . . or maybe they’re like the “Sun King,” Louis XIV of France, bestowing the semi-official title of maîtresse-en-titre on his main squeeze and installing her at court.

I should note here that although I’m speaking mostly of men having affairs with female lovers, homosexual affairs are not only possible, but in some cases were every bit as normal. In both Japan and Rome, there were stretches of time where the pimpin’ lifestyle was to be married and to have female and male lovers on the side. In ancient Greece, the general belief was that love didn’t really exist between husbands and wives; that was a political and economic partnership, and true affection could only happen between men. Unlike heterosexual affairs, these at least were unlikely to produce bastard children — look for them in next week’s essay. (Louis XIV’s brother, Philippe d’Orléans, paraded his male lovers every bit as publicly as the king did his mistresses, and this was accepted in part because it reduced the threat he posed to his brother’s throne.)

The idea of an “official mistress” shades over very rapidly into the ill-defined term “concubinage.” Depending on where you’re looking, that term can mean several things — up to and including what in English we would call civil unions, which is sort of what it meant in ancient Rome. At other time, where the boundary lies between concubinage and polygyny can be as much a matter of translation as anything else. But as we generally use the term, there are two interlinked patterns that tend to emerge.

The first is slavery. It’s very common for concubines to be the property of their master — which doesn’t necessarily mean they’re low-born, though it can. They may be captured in war, or sold off by their families as a political move, getting a relative into the royal or imperial palace. Even in the Roman sense of the term, a concubina was not the social equal of her partner, which was often why they did not have a full marriage. And I should note here that the both the female and male “lovers” of many Roman patricians were actually their household slaves. Whether they got called concubines or not, they were considered the sexual as well as economic property of their owners.

The second pattern is a differentiation of rights. When someone is referred to as a concubine instead of a wife, it usually means she has fewer marital rights than the woman with that latter title. In some ways, enslaved status is an aspect of this, but it also applies particularly to children and inheritance: often the children of a concubine are not eligible to inherit. Or at least, by default they aren’t; in ancient Mesopotamia, a barren wife could purchase a slave to be her husband’s concubine and produce offspring in her place. Historical Chinese dramas often mark the gradations of rank within the imperial women’s quarters by terming some of them concubines, others consorts, and one the empress — but one woman’s son might end up adopted by another woman of higher rank, especially if the higher-ranking woman is childless and/or the birth mother is dead.

So with concubinage in place, we kind of get a steady gradation from polygyny where all the wives have equal rights (though perhaps a hierarchy of seniority), to concubinage with a codification of lesser rights, to “official mistresses” given recognition at court, to mistresses whose existence is winked at, to truly illicit affairs. But again: this is virtually always about men’s infidelity. Because our societies are so often patriarchal, even in a matrilineal culture, women rarely if ever get the freedom of those first few tiers. There are quasi-exceptions; the medieval ideal of courtly love and the eighteenth-century Italian idea of a cicisbeo allowed for a woman to receive romantic attention from a man who was not her husband. But scholars debate whether courtly love was ever supposed to be physically consummated, and apparently the ideal cicisbeo was a gay man — not quite the same thing as a concubine or a maîtresse-en-titre. As for homosexual affairs between women, while they undoubtedly happened in the past as well as today, the historical documentation for them tends to be next to nonexistent.

But of course, all of that is history, and we write speculative fiction. In an imaginary society, you can set the standards wherever you please, whether that’s the court of la reine soleil with her collection of boytoys or a dystopia that mandates immediate death for all adulterers regardless of gender. The thing to bear in mind is that the standards tie in with major questions of reproduction, inheritance, gender equality or lack thereof, status and wealth, and more. Whether the situation is strict or permissive, the society around it needs to make sense with that.

The Patreon logo and the text "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

Author

Share

About Marie Brennan

Marie Brennan is a former anthropologist and folklorist who shamelessly pillages her academic fields for inspiration. She recently misapplied her professors' hard work to the short novel Driftwood and Turning Darkness Into Light, a sequel to the Hugo Award-nominated Victorian adventure series The Memoirs of Lady Trent. She is the author of several other series, over sixty short stories, and the New Worlds series of worldbuilding guides; as half of M.A. Carrick, she has written The Mask of Mirrors, first in the Rook and Rose trilogy. For more information, visit swantower.com, Twitter @swan_tower, or her Patreon.

Comments

New Worlds: A Bit on the Side — 12 Comments

  1. Pingback: New Worlds: A Bit on the Side - Swan Tower

  2. And to make things that much more complex, consider the “adultery” problem in and around the Arabian Gulf, where (in both Zoroastrian and Islamic cultures/traditions) men of even moderate power have been somewhere between “encouraged” and “required” to maintain multiple wives. The flip side of the ease of divorce in Arabian Gulf cultures, and its relationship to “actual” adultery, is also worth some consideration. These things don’t exist in isolation, which is sort of the point of “adultery” in the first place.

    Adultery is also unusual in the West because the mere accusation has often been treated socially — sometimes even legally — as proof. To my knowledge, there is no other offense against either social norms or enforceable legal norms that is treated that way — not even blasphemy and other purely religion-based social offenses. Perhaps the closest is contemporary accusations of “Racist!” but the reaction is far from as predictable or widespread as is an accusation of “Adulterer!” even today.

    • I think the power of the accusation applies to unchastity in general, at least when leveled at women; whether it’s adultery or premarital sex, simply the suspicion of unchaste behavior means she has failed to keep her reputation spotless like she should, regardless of her actual behavior.

      • The converse of “guys’ locker-room banter/boasting,” with the implied “duty” to extol one’s own manly successes, perhaps? But then, there’s no code duello in which the relatives of the “wrongly accused” would defend her reputation with pistols at ten paces, either. (In modern US locker rooms, the probability that someone would bring a 9mm automatic from Dad’s, or even their own, arsenal is worryingly high.)

  3. My impression is that a lot of ‘smaller’ societies are relatively sexually open for women, but they’ll be ones that don’t have much property (foragers), or where the property is women-owned or at least matrilineal in descent (associated with horticulture, rather than use of large draft animals in agriculture, according to _Women’s Work_.)

    • From what I’ve seen, the evidence tends to be mixed. I mentioned Na “walking marriages” last week, and those are pretty open in the sense that women are free to leave their husbands pretty much whenever and take up with somebody else, but even there, it’s more serial monogamy than anything else.

  4. Sexual fidelity (and official marriages in general) mattered much more when inheritance became important. Alliances resulted in audiences to watch infants being born (and not switched).

  5. There was a court case in Athens where a man was prosecuting Neaera on charges she was passing herself off as a citizen and the wife of a citizen. One thing he urges is that their wives will hate them if they acquit her.

    Also, Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens by James Davidson presents the evidence, and normal relations for a man were with a woman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.