A bunch of very quick responses (no time right now for real answers):
On 10/12/99, Paul J. Stamler wrote:
[ ... ]
>It's also worth noting that, outside of the island of Lesbos (and the
>legendary Amazons), the social construct of "lesbianism" as an ism is
>fairly new -- much newer than the concept of male homosexuality. One of
>the most interesting histories of lesbianism points out that while
>individual same-sex relationships among women may have existed, a lesbian
>subculture really didn't begin until the early years of this century,
>when (among many other social changes) it became much more possible for
>women to live economically independant lives.
This is probably all true, but it ignores one very significant institution:
The harem. The Ottoman Sultan had hundreds of concubines, for instance,
but only one wife (the first woman in the harem to bear him a son). Many
of these women got no attention from the Sultan at all. So it is
generally conceded that some, at least, turned to lesbianism....
On 10/13/99, DS LR Surv Lt Col C M St G Kirke wrote:
>I have often idly wondered, being a soldier myself, how these women
>managed to conceal their gender, or if they failed how they managed to
>live apparently normally among the men. Was their collusion? Was there
>a price? Was there simple acceptance of the situation?
The basic answer, I think, is that there was no culture of cleanliness
back then. Sailors, in particular, might not bathe for many months.
So as long as one was very cautious while eliminating, one would be
all right.
The same is more or less true of soldiers. Oh, one's tent mates
would certainly know -- but usually, if not always, the tentmate
was one's true love, who wasn't going to give you away.
So the basic answer is, "No daily showers."
Bob Waltz
[log in to unmask]
"The one thing we learn from history --
is that no one ever learns from history."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|