Marital Sex in Early Modern Europe - Coursework Example

Why was marital sex in early modern Europe relatively unimportant when compared with its role in the modern age? Marriages in early modern Europe were not based upon questions of physical compatibility and were not usually decided on by the two individuals entering into it. This was a decision made by the families for greatest mutual advantage. This meant that people were not, as a rule, generally attracted to each other physically making the sexual act an act of duty rather than pleasure. This idea was further accented by the differences in age between the marriage partners, which could often be as much as 20 years, making the man more of a father figure than a true life partner. Sex was therefore often considered to be simply a means of producing the future workers of the farm. In order to make sure heirs would be born, premarital sex was not entirely frowned upon. If the girl became pregnant before marriage, it was proof that she was fertile and the marriage could be made official. The land had also become more productive and new industries were born, creating a need for greater numbers of workers and forcing society to be both more lenient toward unwed mothers and more accepting of their children. Although laws had been written to prevent servants and unlanded peoples from marrying, this did not prevent them from engaging in sex with desired partners, thereby producing illegitimate children who were often welcomed into the household as future workers and guarantors that the farm or the industry would thrive. Individuals in poorer households generally married for economic reasons and worked hard all day while practicing a general hands-off approach to human relationships. People in the upper classes often took on lovers to excite them sexually because they were not limited by the same economic constraints and their time was not wholly devoted to sustenance and support. What was the nature of the ‘bourgeois morality’ that began in the eighteenth century? The bourgeois morality that began in the eighteenth century grew out of the marriage and sexual practices of the nobility class. Because marriage was seen as more of an economic arrangement, it was generally considered unwise to hamper it with excessive love at the same time that an aesthetic appreciation for sex, with extramarital partners, was being developed. However, as industries began to move outside of the home and families began to live in closer proximity to each other, emotional attachments became stronger and the idea of marrying for love rather than money began to take precedence. Because the family no longer worked within a larger community of servants and siblings to maintain the family farm or the tradesman’s shop, they were afforded more privacy with each other and grew closer together. It became fashionable to love one’s wife or husband as a lover as well as a lifetime economic partner and outside lovers were strongly discouraged. This was particularly true among the educated classes who were beginning to explore what was meant by the idea of love and where it was most appropriately felt. At the same time, blatant signs of affection were discouraged even between the married couple as it was thought to incite similar reactions in the children, who were supposed to be learning the type of restraint and constraint practiced by their fathers. This was necessary in order to hold the family productive unit together. A father who went off to work in the factory all day could not be expected to continue supporting a wife who spent the day with her lover just as a wife who watched the children all day had to depend upon the support of a husband who didn’t have the conflict of interest of another lover elsewhere. While this did tend to put new strains on the marriage arrangement, it also helped to hold the marriage together during changing times. How did the roles and status of women in companionate marriages change? Upper middle class women within this economy were expected to remain at home and her duties were reduced to having children and taking care of the early portions of their education. Housework was left to the servants and it was no longer necessary for her to take part in the production efforts of the farm or industry. The woman was increasingly defined as passive and emotional and fit only to remain within the household and care for the children that were produced within that household. “The wife does not live for herself, but only in and with the family” (Riehl cited on 132). This process was much slower to be adopted in the lower classes because their living conditions either made it impossible or continued to make it possible for the wife to participate in wage earnings from within the home through activities such as sewing or washing. However, even here, it was usually the man who was considered the breadwinner and the woman who cared for the needs of the children. At the same time, there was a similar shrinking of the family circle to include the mother, father and offspring of this couple with a life separate and distinct from the life of the factory or major means of production. In their attempt to emulate the classes above them, sex was also more often relegated to the married couple. Although many women worked to help support the needs of the family, any shortfalls she might have in the household duties were not generally picked up by the man but had to be hired out. As a result, women often struggled to find work that would enable them to work from the home or would strive to encourage her husband in economic pursuits that would enable her to reduce or eliminate her working hours altogether. Why has the attitude of society toward the elderly changed in recent centuries? The reason society has begun to change its attitudes toward the elderly in recent centuries is due, at least in part, to the increased ages people are living to in conjunction with a decrease in production of offspring as they age. Today, people are more likely to reach advanced ages and they are also more likely to have their children earlier and then stop having children younger, thus reaching the ‘elderly’ stage of life in which there are no children in the home at an earlier age. In addition, the industrial society no longer requires the acquired wisdom of the elderly to understand shifts in agrarian environments, for instance. This information can be obtained by conducting a Google search or opening a book when required and is most often not required. Most industries today, at least in the towns and cities, do not require long-term acquired knowledge of this sort as it is all a part of the regular training patterns or has been taken over by machines that require no training whatsoever. Because people are living to older ages, there is also an increased incidence of ‘old-age’ diseases that are debilitating and long-lasting, requiring long-term intensive care by younger members of the family or long-term financial support if the family elects to place these elderly in homes specially designed to provide the care required. Finally, many old people are finding it necessary to live alone, away from their children who would have been responsible for their welfare in times past, further exacerbating worry and concern in a time when no one, the son or the daughter, has time to take away from work and other household duties to care for the elderly parent. While it is often assumed that this was not an issue in pre-industrial times, it seems clear that those who reach the age of ‘old and infirm’ must have always required some looking after and therefore ended up depleting the family resources rather than building them up. What are the positive and negative aspects of aging in pre-modern and modern society? One of the positive aspects of aging in the modern society is that the grandparents, the third generation, is now younger and generally healthier than their pre-modern counterparts. As a result, they are more able to help parents care for the children of the family, particularly the very young children, and they are also able to help care for the older generation still surviving, the great-grandparents or fourth generation, who are now seeing their bodies and minds beginning to break down and require assistance for various things. In this way, they are able to continue being productive and responsible members of the family group, both relieving the burdens of the young mother as she attempts to keep house and children safe while working and the burdens of the young son as he tries to support aging relatives. One of the negative aspects of this is that the modern society enables children to live far away from their parents and grandparents, making these sorts of arrangements more difficult to maneuver. There are few indications that the large extended family of four generations comprising a communal household existed in the pre-modern society, but when people did manage to live this long, it was more likely that they would live together or close enough to each other to take a part in daily living activities. The activities of the agrarian society tended to facilitate that integration of the elderly with the remaining younger family members to a greater degree than urbanized society currently allows. This means a positive benefit of reaching an old age in the past was that the elderly had their family around them while a negative aspect of old age in the present is characterized by isolation and loneliness, particularly when one spouse has already passed away. In the old days, older people were thus able to interact with a wide section of the population and varying age groups while today they are more limited to their own age group or no social interaction at all. How have changes in the family economy affected the care of the elderly? When family economy was based largely on the production of the farm, old age did not seem to severely impact the household. This was first because many people did not live to old age and second because they were able to work until their bodies were no longer capable of carrying out the tasks they needed to do. Even here, the old farmer could elect to retain possession of his farm and simply allocate those duties that he was no longer capable of doing. When he chose, or when his landlord determined that the old farmer was no longer capable of running the farm, the elderly were frequently provided with shelter and food for the remainder of their lives, which was not usually considered to be much longer. As life moved into the cities and towns, becoming more regulated by crafts and trades, the elderly began to experience more difficulties as it was less possible for the family to simply provide them with an additional room or home upon their reaching a certain age. The trade-off here, though, was that artisans could generally provide them with shelter in an empty room at the hospitals and provide the money to keep them fed and clothed throughout the remainder of their lives – the early form of today’s nursing homes. Groups such as guilds and monasteries also provided these types of services for those who reached retirement age in pre-modern times. The introduction of wage-earning precluded any attempts toward old-age retirement insurance, forcing the state to step in to provide these types of programs, which have been slow to start and often not sufficient to provide for the full needs of the elderly. At the same time, industrialization has necessitated the establishment of a particular age, most often 65, at which individuals are expected to retire, regardless of their ability or desire to continue working, arbitrarily forcing support for increasingly lengthening time frames as people continue to live to older ages. Read More