(no subject)

[foreverdawning]

I'm sure everyone's already read it but 13th century nuns' love letters made me swoon. (link) I was wondering if anyone knows how common it was historically for sapphic women to become nuns. I read a little bit about it in the book Teresa by Barbara Mujica, but after reading the article I got to thinking about it. 

Comments

[hrj]

Yay, a fan of the podcast! The episode you're thinking of on nuns is this one: http://thelesbiantalkshow.podbean.com/e/episode-18d-unconventional-women/ (There's an index of all the podcast topics on the alpennia.com website.)

For the original question, I'd say it isn't so much "how common it was historically for sapphic women to become nuns?" but more a case of "how common was it historically for nuns to engage in sapphic relationships?" Earlier ages didn't have the same concept of a fixed sexual orientation that we have today, and one of the things that meant was that there wasn't a sense that you had to "be a lesbian" to enjoy romantic and/or sexual relations with another woman. It was a thing that some women did, and something that pretty much all women had the potential for. (Though, of course, there were also reasons people might resist the impulse.)

It's difficult to track what the rate of same-sex activity in convents was because the sources aren't exactly neutral on the topic. (Either they want to downplay the possibility or they want to frame convents as hotbeds of vice and sin, depending on one's religious prejudices.) But what we do have solid evidence for is that convent administrators were aware of the possibility of nuns developing close emotional and erotic bonds, and that they took a variety of measures to try to control or prevent them. The concern wasn't always specifically sexual -- bonds of personal affection were felt to be disruptive to the sense of community in the convent even when they had no hint of eroticism.

I've been following this community since it was set up but haven't gotten around to doing an introduction post yet. I really should do that.

[foreverdawning]

Thank you for the link! I'll put the transcript on my to read list.

[auroracloud]

Ah, thank you for the link! My tendency to listen to podcasts while I'm doing something practical like cooking means that I remember what I was doing when I listened to something, but not when it was and what kind of episode it belonged to. Your podcast is one of my favourite podcasts ever - and actually one of the original reasons I started listening to podcasts - found it via your blog and decided to give it a try. Glad to see you here, too!

And that's a good point about the effect of earlier ages not having the concept of fixed sexual orientation that has come to dominate the modern discourse. I've only started finding a significant amount of information on queer history in the recent years, so it's all too easy to leap back into the modern mindset even though you technically know the point of view is different. One of the things I really enjoy about your podcast and blog is the way you'll dig deep into the actual attitudes and customs of the time, trying to see what the reality of the people would be rather than just interpreting all through the same modern Western lens. It's useful, informative, and helps in opening to mind to other ways of thinking and behaving, which is important with history.

That's very true about the sources and the difficulty of finding neutral sources likely to give accurate information.