Heilsan,
I've addressed this issue in an Article I wrote for the
AET Website which I have posted below.
Ver thu heil
An often discussed concept amongst Asafolk seems to be that of Sexual Morality. We exist in a world where Sexual freedom has increased in leaps and bounds by the capability of firstly, effective contraception, secondly, the improved situation regarding the tolerance for homosexual relationships, and finally, the boom in communication brought about through the internet with its' associated capability of chat and e-mail communication around the world which is fast, and inexpensive. What does become an issue then, is with these changes in our society, how do we as Asafolk come to view the concepts of Fidelity and Sexual Morality?
The first thing we have to do, is look at how the words Morality, Ethics and Fidelity are defined, so that we know exactly what we are referring to and talking about.
Morality: - Mo*ral"i*ty, n.; pl. Moralities. [L. moralitas: cf. F. moralit['e].] 1. The relation of conformity or nonconformity to the moral standard or rule; quality of an intention, a character, an action, a principle, or a sentiment, when tried by the standard of right.
2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right.
3. The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.
4. The practice of the moral duties; rectitude of life; conformity to the standard of right; virtue; as, we often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.
5. A kind of allegorical play, so termed because it consisted of discourses in praise of morality between actors representing such characters as Charity, Faith, Death, Vice, etc. Such plays were occasionally exhibited as late as the reign of Henry VIII. --Strutt.
6. Intent; meaning; moral. [Obs.]
Ethics - Eth"ics, n. [Cf. F. ['e]thique. See Ethic.] The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.
Fidelity - Fi*del"i*ty, n. [L. fidelitas: cf. F. fid['e]lit['e]. See Fealty.] Faithfulness; adherence to right; careful and exact observance of duty, or discharge of obligations. Especially: (a) Adherence to a person or party to which one is bound; loyalty. (b) Adherence to the marriage contract. (c) Adherence to truth; veracity; honesty.
Syn: Faithfulness; honesty; integrity; faith; loyalty; fealty.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
If we look at the definition of Morality to be found above we see that it speaks to an all encompasing doctrine, or set of rules, that encompasses human behaviour. The underlying thought process here is that of monofaith, or monothought, insofar as we have one standard by which all actions are measured. This is all fine and well within the framework of a heirarchical top-down model wherein doctrine and edicts from one central authority can be used to provide a set of rules which need to be adhered to, but we run into difficulty when there are disparate sets of rules, and such is usually the case within Asatru, where different tribes, kindreds and organisations exist, each with their own set of rules.
These rules, set by the organisations themselves, may, or may not, be similar in their moral character. Hence morality within Asatru becomes sitational and a process of ethical consideration within specific areas of life. In this case we are more looking at a stuy of Sexual Ethics, as opposed to Sexual Morality. We are seeking to somehow define a set of rules of action within this limited area of Asatru. The rules of action within the sexual sphere of life, as they apply to Asatru, are not as clear cut as many would like. Historically we have sources of originative concepts with regards to the rules that applied to different people at different times. These sources are the textual lore of our ancestors, archaeological finds, and textual observations of the lifestyle of our ancestors by foreign authors.
Now we need to also work on the concept of Fidelity, as defined above, insofar as it applies to the issue of Sexual Morality/Ethics. If we start looking at historical evidence, we get some degree of information on how sex and the morality/ethics of sex was seen by our ancestors. Let us look at some examples.
Tacitus in his Germania [19] written 98CE writes:
"Adultery in that populous nation is rare in the extreme, and punishment is summary left to the husband. He shaves off his wife's hair, strips her in the presence of kinsmen, thrusts her from his house and flogs her through the whole village".
What is very interesting is that Tacitus, whilst being a keen observer, is also, and by his own admission (in the Agricola), trying to show up the morally corrupt Roman Empire by using examples of the "Noble Savage". For us today, to try and develop a good idea of the way our ancestors behaved, we have to take look at his work in the light of this fact.. What is intersting in this instance is that the woman appears to be considered to be at fault. There is no indication of what happens to the male party.
The Lex Gundobada states that when a married woman leaves her husband she will be put to death and placed in the bog.
Once more, it is curious that we have a situation where this is very much in favour for the male half of the equation. The Lex Gundobada was established in 484 by Gundobar, who was of all things, an Arian Christian, therefore in this case we have a Christian and not a traditional Heathen perspective.
False accusation of Adultery seems to have been a very serious crime as well, with the accuser having the possiblity of being put to death for such a false accusation. In Guðrunarkviða KII in the Edda, it tells about a woman by the name of Herkja who falsely accuses king Atli's wife, Gudrun of adultery. Herkja was brought to the bogs. We must be mindful though that Herkja is Atli's bondmaid and had become his Mistress, thus an accusation by her, if proven, would see Gudrun removed and Herkja would be free to assume the power and prestige of being Queen. Sound familiar? So in essence we have here a situation where it is the disruption brought about by the accusation and the lying that is being punished and not the "immoral" sexual relations taking place. Indeed, if matters had remained as they were, there would have been no issue.
The accusatory passage is related thus (Terry Translation):
"What is wrong, Atli? Why are you always
low in spirits, never laughing?
Your noble warriors wonder why
you are silent, and seem to shun me."
Atli replied:
"I am grieved, Gudrun, Gjuki's daughter,
by what Herkja told me in the hall:
that you had slept with Thjodrek, Thjodmar's son,
lay with the warrior gladly for love"
It is interesting to note here that Atli is only "grieved" and is not demanding a bogging for his wife. What is also interesting is it seems that infidelity on the part of the male party is fine, but Gudrun is expected to be faithful, hardly an equitable situation, but at any rate, there is not punishment being doled out for the sexual conduct, but the conduct as relates to lying.
Hear thou, Loddfafnir, and heed it well,
learn it, 'twill lend thee strength,
follow it, 'twill further thee:
if thee list to gain a good woman's love
and all the bliss there be,
thy troth shalt pledge, and truly keep:
no one tires of the good he gets.
Havamal 130
The above is often touted as an admonition to remain sexually faithful. The problem is that we have here the words "thy troth shalt pledge, and truly keep:", In this case Troth implies the oath that one makes, and that can include or exclude sexual relations. Once more we come back to the issue of, be careful what oaths you make, and take them seriously.
If we look at the tales of the gods and goddesses, they themselves are perhaps the greatest perpetrators of marrital sexual infidelity to be found anywhere. The question is, does this provide a true representation, or are the Christian writers of the age trying to point out the immoral (according to them) character of the gods and goddesses. It certainly seems to be the case, especially with the goddessses, who are in almost every case portrayed as tramps. This is in abject fear of the power of female sexuality which many monotheist males had a big difficulty with and today, many women have difficulty with, thanks to centuries of having their sexual power denegrated.
The most obvious example of the gods and goddesses and the relationships they hold, is that of Oðin and Frigg. Both parties are staunchly loyal to each other, even though they have others who they share the bed with, but in every case where there is sexual conduct, we are always given the impression that it is sexual conduct and not conduct of the heart. Their troth is intact, as it would appear that their relationship is one of love and mutual trust, and that sexual forays by both parties do not threaten this relationship.
If we look at the Icelandic Law of our ancestors, the most complete legal records we have, divorce was certainly known, and was equally valid for both men and women (unheard of in most cultures of the period), and getting a divorce due to extramarital sexual relations did take place, but there were certainly no further implications than there being a divorce. What is also very interesting is that most divorce cases were brought about by women in the Heathen period, something which changed after Christianisation.
A further implication, often brought up, but less of a consideration given the accessiblity of contraception, is that of bloodlines and the desire to only look after our own progeny. This seems far too much a modern idea, as if we look to the Lore, the gods and goddesses often sired children with different mothers without there being calamitous implications for the existing marital relationship. Our ancestors were also fond of the practice of fostering, where children would go to live with other families to learn from them. This builds social bonds, more than tears them down. What must be realised here is that there is a degree of social and personal ideological advancement which allows folk to not be threatened by such situations, but instead to gain and benefit from them.
What we must also be mindful of, is that Marriage is an oath, and it would appear that it is far more the act of Oathbreaking that is the crime here, than any sexual indiscretion. In essence this is the very core of the situation... where the oath of marriage procludes extramarital sexual relations, then clearly extramaritalsexual relations are a breaking of that oath. Where the oath omits the issue entirely, then it is up to the parties to make it up as they go along, so it is wise to establish just what will be and what will not be acceptable between the parties, and if there is a marriage, this should be codified as part of the oath. Including allowance of extramarital sexual relations within the oath of marriage can be as good an idea as including disallowance, because then everyone knows where they stand and cannot say that they were not aware.
We have looked at one issue, that of Adultery, which is implied is a condition that occurs when we have a Heterosexual situation. Not much really needs to be modified for a Homosexual situation, as regardless, there are often oaths involved for long term relationship creation and these oaths are vital to the very nature and integrity of the process.
Looking at the concept of Homosexuality, and very probably we can address Bisexuality in the same breath, there seems to be not much to go on. However, there is enough to get an idea of what the general impression of Homosexuality was. No-where do we have direct textual references to Homosexuality, but there definitely are words that imply that Homosexuality was known and did exist. What one must realise is that the exclusive living of a Homosexual life is something that has not come to pass until very recently within Western society. In the agrarian society of our ancestors, where reproduction and marriage were very important, even if one was Homosexual, there would have been massive societal pressure to get married and have children.
In Old Norse we have terms for folk who seem to not be interested in sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. The term fuðlogi describes men who are afraid of womens sexual organs and flannfulga describes women who are afraid of mens sexual organs. Naturally there is some question of the differences in the treatment of Homosexuality in the Heathen period and the Christian period. Much of the lore was only written in the Christian period and so it is difficult to get an accurate impression of the concepts held by our Heathen ancestors, albeit we do have some interesting indicators.
It would appear that in the Heathen period the only form of Homosexuality that raised any degree of concern was that of male Homosexuality. And even within this sphere, we are looking at the situation where only the passive role within the Homosexual relationship was cause for concern. The words ergi or regi (noun), and argr or ragr (adjective), indicate a willingness to play the female, or submissive role in a Homosexual relationship. Thus we can see that it is not he Homosexual relationship that is considered problematic, but the person who is willing to take on a submissive role. This concept holds true with the lore of the period, whereby we are looking at a warrior society which stressed strength and dominance.
Modern attitudes to both extra marital sexual relations and Homosexuality have changed from those to be found in our ancestral history. Much of the Christian baggage of Homosexuality being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other concepts attached to it has been sloughed off, but still it lingers and hence articles like this are required. In our modern world we seek to have guidance in such matters from our spirital inheritance, and this is one attempt to bring some degree of knowledge to the fore about the issue.
Within modern Asatru, we find attitudes are as widely varying as they are within the general community, and this is to be expected. What I personally urge folk to do, is to consider the concepts of extra marital sexual relations and Homosexuality with tolerance. As I continually say, tolerance does not equate to acceptance. You don't have to accept anyone elses lifestyle, but then again, you don't have to cause them grief over it either if it isn't causing you any particular difficulties.
Let us extend the issue and look at the attitudinal concepts that accompany the modern viewpoint of these situations. I will be only giving my thoughts on the matter, and folk are free to agree or disagree with them, and that's what the article section of the AET website is all about, the freedom to articulate viewpoints, with out going to excess. My attitude is certainly not one of "do what thou wilt, as long as it harm none." This tripe has been tripped out repeatedly by folk who seem to have little real knowledge.
Extra martial relationships within the context of Asatru, is a situation that in our history seems to have not been considered much of an issue insofar as male "infidelity" is concerned. It would seem however, that women have not had anywhere near the same degree of latitude. Within our modern society, we either go one way, in that the strictures apply equally both ways, or we open up the possibility of female extra marital sexual relations without fear of retribution for same. The answer to this question needs to be found within the relationship of the folk in question, and the issuance of an "edict from the top", to me seems something that smacks of Christian top-down heirarchical structures. Each Kindred or Organisation needs to create rules it feels comfortable with.
When one considers the the issue of extra marital relationships, we can see that it is fraught with all the issues of human emotion. Often it is better not to enter into a situation which might cause difficulties, especially if this has not been discussed within the relationship. It can be difficult for anyone to separate sexual contact from emotional contact, and keeping those outside the primarly relationship as just friends. Other issues are those of the transmission of sexually transmitted disease, and pregnancy is always something to be mindful of, especially given the expense of children within our modern society where a large population is no longer the primary asset as existed in our agrarian past.
Clearly it's a tough ask, but we can see from our history that attitudes differed with time period and subculture. The gods and goddesses have no difficulties, but then do we equate ourselves to them, or should we perhaps be taking our lessons from them. The process of sexual interaction that the gods and goddesses undertake does not affect their primary relationships. It is in this way that troth is kept, even when sexual exclusivity is not.
Regarding modern concepts of Homosexuality, frankly, the same concepts apply. It is the troth that is important, and the understanding between the folk within the relationship. Homoesexuality in and of itself is not an excuse for poor behaviour within a relationship. Homosexuality and Bisexuality in our modern environs should have none of the strictures that existed in our ancestral past where the need to marry, and have children was paramount. Our world doesn't work like this anymore, with the need for progeny not being as important as it once was.
Ultimately, for both issues, I personally do not see the need for limitation of folk being able to choose alternative lifestyles, and in essence that is what these are, with only a small proportion of folk having relationships of this type. What is important is the oaths and troth that come as a part of the relationships we have, and how we treat them and hold them.
Reply
