Week 14: "Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love."

"Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love."
- ALVY SINGER (Woody Allen) in Annie Hall (1977)

Okay, I do not even know where to start with this post…
We read a case investigated by the Inquisition, as it relates to heresy, with regards to a beata named Marina de San Miguel. Now, one of the major reasons for reading this article was to understand the procedural dichotomy used by the investigators and notaries, for the purpose of analyzing what formula was followed during such trials and how they were interpreted by the notaries. So let us skim through this first. Jacqueline Holler informs us that notaries did not transcribe the procedures verbatim, rather, they more often than note were a summary of what the accused had said; especially when the accused repeated a culturally used phrase or quote (i.e. scripture from the Bible). Holler does point out, however, that the records are very specific and personal, given their empirical inclination. She then explains the standard formula in succession, as it relates to procedural flow of a typical inquisition trial. I did find it highly unusual that in a trial of such magnitude, the defendant was allowed counsel; even if they had been appointed through the court itself.
What makes Holler’s argument so interesting is the case she chose to examine. Marina was a fifty-three year old woman, living as a beata in Mexico, circa1598. Beata’s were less formal version of nuns, giving themselves a position socially that was acceptable, but also establishing a nun’s life without the restrictions of living in a monastery. Through her testimony, we are able to establish that she belonged to the Dominican order and her occupation was as a needle worker and she owns her own home; thus reflecting the independence Marina had spiritually, financially and socially, especially since she had never married. In her first confession, she declares that perhaps the reason she has been arrested was because of a conversation she had had with a non believer. She informs the committee that she had already told her order’s priest about this and was absolved. She is then sent back to her cell and told to reexamine her memory. Three days later, Marina again confesses to the same conversation and was again sent back to her cell to go over her thoughts. Then her narrative starts to get weird.
One day later, on her third confession, she began confessing to seeing a hallucination of Christ and body aches similar to what might have been the onset of menopause. She then describes what sounds like an epileptic seizure and astral flight. The court then set her back to her cell (and probably took away her mushroom stash). The next day she starts to describe another delusion that depicted…hell? Somehow, in this version, Christ superimposed himself on her “former” fiancé, then she got drunk, and (if I understand this correctly) got married and had sex with him, before waking up the next morning, probably with one hell of a hangover and trying to figure out what had happened the night before; too bad Marina did not have Alan Jackson to sing her the explanation.

A couple of days later she confesses eating meat at times it is restricted by her faith and asks for forgiveness. Then nearly two months later Marina, literally lets the “(pussy) cat out of the bag” She divulges to the committee that fact that she has been “self-sustaining” sexually for at least the last fifteen years, where upon “came to pollution”, (i.e. orgasm), but only a couple of times every other month or so. From self-love, she then admits to having sex with Juan Nunez, apparently an accountant, also living among her order. Actually, she not only admits to having sex, but to specific and descriptive sexual acts. Then next day she confesses to having sex with another man, Alonso Gutierrez, as well as more masturbation. Then next day, she admitted to sexual acts with a former priest, who was now in China.
Her ninth and final confession, Marina admits to having a sexual relationship with another beata in her order. Finally, on February 2nd, oddly enough the Day of Purification, Marina decides she has confessed enough. She was later convicted, her punishment being gagged, bound, while partially nude, beat a hundred times, fined, and sentenced to a live in a plague hospital, where it appears she became ill and died.
So what can we take away from this bizarre story? First, the longer someone is held in prison, the more things they will confess to. Second, Marina starting confessing things before she ever knew why she was there or by whom the Inquistition had gotten her name. Third, she admitted to sexual behaviors, which she was punished for, though she had only taken a promise to be celibate, unlike the vows nuns were required to adhere by. Fourth, the Order of Saint Dominic was a very “loving” and sexual group of believers. It appears that Marina’s punishment was intended to kill her, but my question would be, why did it take nearly two years after her confessions for her to be punished? Also, were there records of who actually turned her in and for what charges? Were they punished in a manner similar to Marina, or was she punished worse because she was an independent, female beata?

Week 15: A Cold Shower would have been more appealing

It’s like being at a climax, then pausing to watch Fox News…
My question is how come society in the 17th century allowed women legal protections under the law, yet by the time the 20th century rolled around, they had absolutely none? The opening of Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito by Kimberly Gauderman, gives two examples of two married women, separated and in essence, hiding themselves from their abusive husbands. Both women, Maria and Ventura (dona Ventura de Zarate), asked the local law enforcement to intervene on their behalf regarding the domestic violence imposed on them by their estranged spouses. Maria’s plight went completely ignored, while the police did intervene on Ventura’s behalf. Gauderman never does give an explanation as to what social and legal changes brought about the full usage of the patriarchal imposed limitations of rights, with regards to women and child, and leaves the reader to gather their own assumptions as to the cause(s).
Despite this, Gauderman does extensively explain how she gathered much of her information, and uses it to bring a well rounded glimpse into the lives of women in Ecuador during the colonial period. I also found chapters 1-3 more stimulating than the last two; especially chapter three on the criminal justice system and women. I find it completely interesting that the ecclesiastical court, which granted very few divorces, contradicted the secular courts, yet women bonded to bad marriages, could find relief in the secular realm. In fact, Gauderman’s example of the priest, Maestro Francisco de la Vega, giving his parishioner, Agustina de la Vega (no known relation to priest Vega), sound advice on how to deal with her philandering excuse of a husband; sue him! Again, though Gauderman gives details into the case, I was again left confused; and no it is not because I am a natural blonde… We are told that Augustina sued her husband for what we can assume was abandonment, adultery, and domestic violence. However, the reader is left without knowing if this was part of a divorce suit or what the outcome of the case was; trust me, it has been driving me up a wall because no where have I been able to find the outcome and it is kind of like reading a book, only to find out the last chapter is missing and the book is out of print. This again shows that Gauderman has excellent sources and examples, yet for some unknown reason, wants to torture the reader by never telling the entire story.
I did learn an interesting fact I never knew before I read this book. I never realized that when Queen Isabella died, her daughter would gain the throne, rather than her husband; I am also still confused as to how Ferdinand was able to maintain control of both empire’s despite this legacy. According to Gauderman, the two empires were not unified again until Charles I took over and co-ruled with his mother until her death. Unfortunately, I had to look up online as to exactly how and why this happened. I realize that Gauderman used certain examples, such as the one above, to show that patriarchy was a permeable state of the family gave women power not only within the family structure, but also within her community; and therefore her society during the colonial period in Quito, but most of the book felt like an economic historical archive; like a sex instruction manual using mundane photos to illustrate correct execution of the matter at hand.

"Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt." Friedrich Nietzsche

"A major difference between witches and psychotherapists is that witches see the mental health of women as having important political consequences." Naomi R. Goldenberg

What makes a witch a witch? Is it her warts, her sinister ways? Does she live by herself? Is she old or is she young? Has she buried many husbands to unknown illnesses? Why is the witch more often than not, a woman? From Western Europe to Salem, Massachusetts, our “civilized” culture has been mesmerized with the thoughts wrapping around such superstition and urban legend. Descriptions of traits and attributions do not seem to have played a great role in the pursuit of locating such evil sorcerers; nor do the articles we examined this week. Rather the only way to discover a witch was if someone accused someone else of practicing witchcraft. Does this feel like déjà vu to anyone else? Was this not the same position of the American government during the Joseph McCarthy era? How out the Stasi in Germany or the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) under Stalin.
How were these not the same tactics? According to Ruth Behar, there are numerous interconnected reasons for the different treatment of those accused of the practice of witchcraft. First, unlike it other witch hunts conducted in the United States and western Europe, these witches not only were entitled to, but also received the right for a legal defense. Second, if found guilty of witch craft, women in Latin America underwent “religious education”, rather than the gristly torture and subsequent death that their Europeans counterparts were claimed by. Behar also points out that unlike the Moors and Jews that were put to death by the Spanish for similar accusations, the indigenous peoples in Latin America were given great leeway because of their recent conversion and adaptation of Christianity. It should also be pointed out that the Moors and Jews were already considered either enemies or suspect of being enemies of the crown and therefore their behavior was of greater concern to the crown given their physical closeness. Additionally, witchcraft in Latin America was looked upon more as superstition by the paternal Spanish authorities; remember the indigenous people were lesser (childlike)peoples, therefore, “re-education” was the better way to promote a true understanding of their Christian conversion.
Behar further explains that accusations of witchcraft were related to sex; examples she used were of scorned lovers, abusive or unfaithful husbands against their wife after they had fallen ill from unknown sources, etc. Behar writes extensively about what these “sorcerers” had used in their concoctions. Herbs, spells, hair and bodily fluids; yes, I did say bodily fluids. To be more specific, menstrual blood was often placed by the women in either food or drink that the man then unknowingly consumed. Though this would have made Billy Bob Thorton right at home, the idea that this was used as part of a spell obviously had serious social ramifications. Behar’s examples are of women confessing to using this tactic to gain power over their cheating or abusive husband. Men thought the blood weaken them. I am personally grossed out by this fact in a total ethnocentric viewpoint and find myself pondering what this culture would have thought (or done with) the invention of the tampon or Always maxi (heavy flow with wings). Either way, Behar’s main point was not the method that the women used, rather, the point that these women felt let down in their litigious society with regards to their personal situation. She writes that in the cases she studied, the “use of witchcraft” was as a last result when either their petition for divorce was denied or no arrest and/or punishment followed their husbands’ actions. Witchcraft gave women a psychological edge over their mate, and appeared to do more to stop the evil infecting their husbands than the legal system provided. Behar is also quick to point out that these records mainly exist because the women felt guilty about some injury that befell their husbands and the result was a confession to gain forgiveness and cleanse them of the damages they had caused.
Overall, Behar used great illustrations to prove her points and gives one pause to think about what they would do (or be accused of) if restitution through the legal system fails them. Too bad for me, I have had a hysterectomy… though I have been called something that rhymes with “witch” by my other half. Maybe that is what those men were really calling their wives…

I cannot believe I am advocating for Adam Smith...

In To Love, honor and Obey In Colonial Mexico, Patricia Seed does an excellent job of using church, and secular laws as well as literature produced during the time period to argue about the cultural change in the ways engagements and marriages happened in from the early sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Seed further informs us that the change of society, especially with regards to the younger generation is what drives the church to take its position against both the parents and secular law; even though it was not known for its advocacy with regards to freedom of choice within the church’s own tenants. Unfortunately, I would have to argue with Seed at this point. I found her book to leave the unanswered question as to the real motives behind the Catholic Church. Seed argues that Capitalism is what ultimately changed the cultural context of marriage; with regards to the economic reasoning behind the cycle of parentally arranged marriage to choice by the couple and ultimately back to parental influence. However, Seed fails to apply and investigate the church’s influence by the raise in a capitalist market. In my opinion, the Catholic Church changed its position on free will for marriage purposes only, in order to retain its financial dependency and political control of these newly made couples, which thereby gave the church a new monetary basis for its own benefit and reinforcement of the church’s tenets of marriage that restricted the wives rights under both the secular and moral laws.
What exactly do I mean? It’s very simple. With the boom of Adam Smith type Capitalism, citizens looked to the government authority to regulate their lives and began ignoring the inflexible nature of the church; in other words, the church was not making anyone money, therefore, financial influence began pouring into the pockets of politicians rather than the church’s. Families were worried about the implications that came along with the intermarriage of their children, which began overshadowing the former tenets of ideology with regards to social beliefs such as “honor”. Honor became a commodity, which one could purchase for the right amount and social status quickly followed. Families began to arrange marriages for their children based on how their marriages could bring an economic addition to said families. For example, when my husband told his parents that he had asked me to marry him, his parents went nuts, worrying over what his “family” assets were, how I would affect the will of his grandparents, and that since my father was a mere painter, there was no financial incentive for his father, etc. Prenuptials were threatened by my father-in-law. They even went so far as to try and set up my husband with one of his third (or fourth) cousin who would sign anything the family told her too (incidentally, his parents either did not know or cared less that this same female was gay). Why? To protect their “family interests” (further explains my in-laws interest in my divorce, does it not?).
It is obvious to see that children, no matter what time period they live in, will rebel against their parent’s authority. The church, however, saw this period as an opportunity. Seed implies that it changed because of the romantic influence of the Renaissance, but I again disagree. I think they saw it as a way to reassert itself into the political sphere and to gain a new basis to collect tithes from. After all, this younger generation would obviously be having sex (since they choose their mate) and they would produce offspring (so long as they went by the church’s prescribed tenets), and therefore the church would gain two probably generations to pilfer its existence off of. Pretty sweet deal if you were the church, pretty rotten if you were the female or the female offspring. Why? Because the church began to infiltrate everyday life; regulating sexual practices, even within the bounds of marriage, fortifying its patriarchal gender roles, which reinforced inheritance laws that took away a woman ability to govern herself.
For the freedom of being able to choose their spouse, women traded their former economic freedom with regards to inheritance and financial compensation for broken engagements, and handed down to their daughters and granddaughters the legacy of prescribed gender roles and assignments, enforced and regulated by the Catholic church, with less economic and legal rights then previously given prior to the idea of “free choice to marry any fool you want to with the blessing of the Catholic Church”.
Less Shakespeare and Cervantes, more Adam Smith based rhetoric next time Ms. Seed…

The Wedding "gift" my in-laws wished had been returned 13 years ago...

One question that has been nagging at me these last couple of weeks is with regards to families, both Spanish and Indigenous, “gifting” their daughters hand in marriage. My first thoughts were that the daughters had been treated as though they were property with either their dowry or familial social/political status as the trade off. Even prior to the Spanish conquering, this same social gifting was prevalent. However, after reading Pedro Carrasco’s essay on Indian and Spanish intermarriage, I began to wonder something else, something that I have yet to see discussed in any of our readings. My question is simple, what if in our modern day know-it-all ethnocentric attitudes, we have misunderstood the acting of “gifting” itself?
Our focus has been on explaining and trying to understand gender roles and assignments from the late 15th century to currently the late 16th century. Yesterday while dealing with my divorce, I reflected on why I married my husband and how funny the concept would have been if my dad had “gifted” me to my husband and his family; though I am pretty sure since they have always treated me like crap, they would have rather he kept his loud mouth liberal daughter… At any rate the thought popped into my head that my father had “gifted” me so to speak. In most traditional marriages, the bride is usually “given” to the groom by the bride’s family. Then I asked myself, what if our understanding of the word “gift” in relation to marriages we are studying has been either misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Some might argue that no, they were literal gifts especially since the Indigenous have their own version prior to the conquest. Carrasco was only able to study intermarriages of the upper echelon of both ethnic realms, mainly because they would have been the only written down or recorded somewhere. However, the idea of a bride’s family giving the equivalent of some form of capital in their society, perhaps land or an actual dowry is nothing new and would have crossed both social and economic barriers; after all, do not most parents want to help their newly married children out with money, furniture or help them find achieve a home of their own? A friend of mine got married over the weekend to another friend of mine from high school. Who gave her away? You guessed it, her family. What did this mean? It meant that those two families are now linked through the marriage of their children. Is this any different from families in the past? No. My in-laws did not like me (and quite frankly there is no love lost on my side either), however, our families will forever be linked. Why? My husband and I had three children, all sons. Regardless of whether my husband and I are married or not, and regardless of my husband and his family disowning my children socially, they are still an undeniable link to his family. My children’s history and heritage comes from both sides because unlike the Holy mother of Christ, I was impregnated by a dork from West Tennessee, not the Holy Spirit, therefore my children and part of their lineage come from their biological father and well as myself. Unfortunately, unlike most of the fathers from Ourense, Spain (Allyson Poska’s essays), my husband apparently thinks he should be able to leave his wife and children, with no child support or alimony, and deny his children their legitimacy and bloodline through his family.

Side note: Do not ask how I got off on this tangent, I gave up “coca-cola” for lent and my mind needs caffeine in order to function properly. Though considering lent is a Catholic practice, I might be able to later tie it into a future discussion…

I'd accept payment in lieu of my virginty, in order to restore my virginity...

“Your honor, this man told me he loved me, promised to marry me, so we hooked up, then I got pregnant and he didn’t want me no more. He “deflowered” me and left me for fill in the blank. I think he needs to support his baby and pay me for taking my virginity. Yes, your honor, two donkeys and a sack of beans will do…” No this is not a scene from Divorce Court with Judge Mablean, rather it is the social, religious and judicial system described by Allyson Poska in diocese of Ourense in northwest Spain from the mid sixteenth through eighteenth century. Poska examines the contradiction between the sovereign rules and edicts introduced by the Catholic Church to legislate the institution of marriage and the cultural adaption of said rules by the local clergy.
Poska has a couple of main goals. First, she wants to explain how the act of pablas de presente, the promise of marriage, was actually beneficial to females during this time compared to the church’s view of palabras del future, the actual act of marriage preformed by a priest, took away females rights as the woman simply passed from her father’s hands to her husband; thereby passing her legal rights as well, so she had no hand in the matter. Second, Poska empathizes that the marriage reforms passed by the church actual caused illegitimacy rates to explode in the region, since father’s who had claimed children born out of wedlock faced severe financial punishment by the church itself. Lastly, she explains how the church’s edicts actually created a legal nightmare for both parties; in essence, it punished them if they wanted to break up the relationship.
I found both her articles entirely gripping. She used the church’s own records to prove their edicts were ineffective and essentially took away women’s rights. Since legally, they were either represented by their father or their husband, the pablas de presente actually gave them financial compensation, similar to alimony in modern divorce, thus allowing them to provide for themselves until they found another mate. The male partner had no reason to not claim children from the relationship, thereby giving the child legitimate birth rights and support. Their mutual agreement to dissolve the relationship and support provisions mirror modern mediated agreements. Women and their families also gained familial honor, and my personal favorite, the restoration of the woman’s virginity, through financial restitution; which gave her and the child cultural acceptance rather than shame. However, the church though too much hanky-panky was going on and laid down the law. No more engagement were acceptable, the young couples had to marry, with little to no chances of divorce being granted, and no financial compensation if it was allowed. Then again, what do you expect out of an institution that went on murderous ethnic cleansing sprees in the name of God? Illegitimacy rates skyrocketed as a result and marriage rates plummeted.
I also found it rather interesting that the local priests, some of which had illegitimate children too, continued to practice the pablas de presente rather than the church official policies. Either they were not worried about punishment by the church itself, or they worried more about the welfare and stability of their local parish. Maybe they simply worried about their own chances of having sex, if they enforce the edicts. Either way, their ignoring of the policy, was financially beneficial to women, thereby creating a financial independence outside of inheritance laws that liberated women and was culturally accepted.
The main idea I took away from her essays was that once again, the Catholic Church itself was a biased institution that took away women’s legal rights as well as enforcing stigma’s that did not exist among lower classes prior to its involvement. I also hope that teenagers do not find out about the whole “restoration of virginity through payment”, since there are enough issues with just Facebook pages...

Angela Bastallas es mi heroe!

First imagine a young single parent, with an infant, having to depend on an impetuous momma’s boy who turns his back on her, rather than acknowledge either the young woman or the child. Now when the child is first born, the young man signs the baby’s birth certificate and provides a home and financial support to the mother and their baby. Suddenly, the young man’s family finds out that he has fathered a child with a woman they consider both racially and socially inferior and he then turns his back on his child and the young mother. Outraged by the young man’s denials and failure to follow through on his promises, she takes what little money she has and hires and attorney to plead her case.
The image above resonates throughout the halls of child support courts every day. Yet, hers is unique. Why? This modern day narrative actually took place one hundred and eight six years ago. The young woman, a slave named Angela Bastallas, began a sexual relationship with her owner, Ildefonso Coronel, only after he promised her freedom in exchange. Soon after she become pregnant and bore him a daughter; a daughter for which he willingly signed what would be considered today as her birth certificate. He failed to mention to the mid-wife caring for Angela that the baby was born to a slave mother. He provided both financial support and for a home for the two, along with providing for a servant. However, when the affair became too humiliating for his well- too –do family, Coronel began denying Angela and their child. Furious, Angela defied not only social norms, but also attacked legally against the institution of slavery (and irresponsible fathers). She was able to hire her own attorney, again upsetting the status quo, and even pleaded her case before Simon Bolivar for his support publically.
I find this case interesting for many reasons. First, that she was able to win her case, and as a direct result, her freedom and support. Though Camilla Townsend does not directly tie this to any one reason, she does give a few important factors; Coronel signing the baptismal certificate for example. Angela was not only able to have one witness, but rather, she had five, all of whom the court found credible; this too was unheard of during the time, especially for a female slave. It too should be noted that because Coronel had signed the certificate, his daughter was automatically free and did not have to wait until her eighteenth birthday as the designated by law.
Secondly, Angela gained her rights because she used the law against itself, and therefore, against Coronel. Her argument that because she and Coronel had created a child together, they were joined in union and thereby took on the status of the other; whether that meant she was free or he was part slave. That argument was combined with the issue of enlightenment socially with regards to slavery and Coronel own beliefs, which had been the basis for the consummation of their sexual relationship, and therefore, the basis for her “earned” freedom.
I find it ironic that Angela was able to gain her freedom and support for her child nearly two hundred years ago against a male that even the Public Defender called a “miserable man without principles” . A slave, promised her freedom, was able to gain it, and today single mother like myself, have to still fight against irresponsible, insolent fathers, who can control the lives of both their children and the mother, legally; otherwise known as modern day “marital” slavery. This might also be one of the first modern day child support cases in the Americas. Angela Basllatas is my new hero!