Re: Devadasi resources

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Henna Page Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Beth on July 2, 2003 at 11:06:08:

In reply to: Re: Devadasi resources posted by Beth on July 2, 2003 at 10:32:01:

URGH! The interface is a little wierd, trying to tab through the
entry fields had me submitting a post! Sorry about that!

: : BTW, what is your opinion of a group of women in a temple who
have
: liaisons
: : (as someone mentioned of their own free will) with the men in the
: village.

Personally, I haven't seen a ton of evidence that things went so free-
willed. Not quite like a singles bar. What I don't necessarily see
is evidence that they were forced, either, as an obligation or duty
that came with the position of temple service. At least not until we
get to modern times, where they are forced into sexual service to
make money for themselves or the temple. Honestly, as far as the
past goes, I don't feel like I've got enough evidence to tell either
way.

In most stories, the courtesans don't seem to fall in love.
The "picking" they do is more like culling men out of the unspecting
herd with flattery and flirtation. I don't hear much reference to
courtesans falling love.

I still don't have a firm set of references that courtesan does or
not equal devadasi. It doesn't help that I don't read any Indian
languages, so I'm dealing with everything in English translation -
which will always be subject to choices made by the translator.

: : That sounds like Indian society(including the women) did not mind
: the men
: : having mistresses (or keeps as they are called in India) which I
: find a bit
: : hard to believe.

My understanding from stories and literature is that visiting a
courtesan was not something the wife consented to - it was something
the husband did. India is such a patchwork of cultures, it's not
really possible to say that one system holds for the whole place, but
I think in the areas where courtesans and other sexual workers were
present, it is male dominated enough that the wife didn't have much
direct authority over what the man does (other than making his
domestic life miserable - which may or may not help reducing time
spent with mistresses).

In some places it seems most wives are such non-entities that their
displeasure at such activities might not even get mentioned. There
are uppity women here and there, but IMO they are not the norm.

: :No woman could have encouraged this.

Well... Believe it or not, I do know Western women in the modern
world who do encourage extra-marital relations - but I think a
discussion of American polyamory is not the topic for today.

There's a lot of focus on acceptance in how a woman is supposed to
act in some scriptures. While she may not be happy about her husband
cavorting with mistresses, she may not feel empowered to speak up
about it. Alot of the outlook on wifely duties and behavior changes
quite a bit depending on time period and location. We have models
for both uppity and submissive behavoir - even in the category of
goddesses. Paravati is quite uppity, while Lakshmi is generally
quite submissive, she almost doesn't seem to have her own personality.

Quite a few scriptures actually say that monogamy is the best for
both the soul and the family. The Dharmasastras even discourage the
pious student of the Vedas from spending any time in the company of
dancers, musicians or other such people or even watching such
performances. Most of the sexual treastises are aimed at helping the
man improve sex with his wife, so that both can enjoy their monogamy
the more - and yet they offer instruction to the courtesan and on how
to find a courtesan. Sort of a contradiction there - if your readers
are supposed to be monogamous, why mention courtesans? One theory -
to relieve sexual tension so as to be at one's best with one's wife...

There's a lot of contradictions between "wife" and "sensual woman" in
Indian literature and scripture.

: : So this must have
: : been a man driven institution. However, I understand that in some
: temples
: : these women were expected to be virgins for life similar to the
: vestal
: : virgins of Greece.

I, honestly, have never heard of that. I haven't seen one reference
to the idea that virginity was ever the goal. I'd be interested to
see the references for that, for it would be very new information for
me.

: : This I can understand, but the idea of a bunch
: of women
: : in a temple deciding which married man to pick sounds a bit
: difficult to
: : stomach, at least for me :).

My impression was that it was not exactly a "pick your favorite" sort
of option. I have not seen references that suggest that the women
were the sexual aggressors. Actually I haven't seen a real strong
connection to temple women having or not having sex at all. I see no
taboos against it, but I also haven't seen enough evidence to suggest
it was part of the job.

I do see a link to dance and temple service - and payment for dance.
But even that hasn't been corrborated so many times that I'd say it's
true for every time and every place.

Courtesans flirt, cajole and wheedle, but in the end it's the man
that made the choice.

The idea of "independance" comes more from the concept that they did
have their own source of income - be it dancing or sex. They were
not dependant on a man for money, so they had control over how they
spent their profits. And had some control over who they *didn't*
sleep with.

Honestly, though, I read about half the Kama Sutra advice to
courtesans and needed to put it away and find something happier. The
frank advice about how to manipulate a man into paying you lots of
money for sexual liasons, while basically undermining his self-
confidence and independance set my teeth on edge. The only thing I
can say for it, is it sounds like the reason the courtesan is so
manipulative is that the man can walk away at any time - seems like
something where it does take two to tango.

-Beth

Lakshmi Amman's Homepage

Follow Ups

Kama sutra Alissa 12:43:06 7/2/2003 (1)
- Re: Kama sutra asha 14:29:52 7/2/2003 (0)

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
: URGH! The interface is a little wierd, trying to tab through the : entry fields had me submitting a post! Sorry about that! : : : : BTW, what is your opinion of a group of women in a temple who : have : : liaisons : : : (as someone mentioned of their own free will) with the men in the : : village. : : Personally, I haven't seen a ton of evidence that things went so free- : willed. Not quite like a singles bar. What I don't necessarily see : is evidence that they were forced, either, as an obligation or duty : that came with the position of temple service. At least not until we : get to modern times, where they are forced into sexual service to : make money for themselves or the temple. Honestly, as far as the : past goes, I don't feel like I've got enough evidence to tell either : way. : : In most stories, the courtesans don't seem to fall in love. : The "picking" they do is more like culling men out of the unspecting : herd with flattery and flirtation. I don't hear much reference to : courtesans falling love. : : I still don't have a firm set of references that courtesan does or : not equal devadasi. It doesn't help that I don't read any Indian : languages, so I'm dealing with everything in English translation - : which will always be subject to choices made by the translator. : : : : That sounds like Indian society(including the women) did not mind : : the men : : : having mistresses (or keeps as they are called in India) which I : : find a bit : : : hard to believe. : : My understanding from stories and literature is that visiting a : courtesan was not something the wife consented to - it was something : the husband did. India is such a patchwork of cultures, it's not : really possible to say that one system holds for the whole place, but : I think in the areas where courtesans and other sexual workers were : present, it is male dominated enough that the wife didn't have much : direct authority over what the man does (other than making his : domestic life miserable - which may or may not help reducing time : spent with mistresses). : : In some places it seems most wives are such non-entities that their : displeasure at such activities might not even get mentioned. There : are uppity women here and there, but IMO they are not the norm. : : : :No woman could have encouraged this. : : Well... Believe it or not, I do know Western women in the modern : world who do encourage extra-marital relations - but I think a : discussion of American polyamory is not the topic for today. : : There's a lot of focus on acceptance in how a woman is supposed to : act in some scriptures. While she may not be happy about her husband : cavorting with mistresses, she may not feel empowered to speak up : about it. Alot of the outlook on wifely duties and behavior changes : quite a bit depending on time period and location. We have models : for both uppity and submissive behavoir - even in the category of : goddesses. Paravati is quite uppity, while Lakshmi is generally : quite submissive, she almost doesn't seem to have her own personality. : : Quite a few scriptures actually say that monogamy is the best for : both the soul and the family. The Dharmasastras even discourage the : pious student of the Vedas from spending any time in the company of : dancers, musicians or other such people or even watching such : performances. Most of the sexual treastises are aimed at helping the : man improve sex with his wife, so that both can enjoy their monogamy : the more - and yet they offer instruction to the courtesan and on how : to find a courtesan. Sort of a contradiction there - if your readers : are supposed to be monogamous, why mention courtesans? One theory - : to relieve sexual tension so as to be at one's best with one's wife... : : There's a lot of contradictions between "wife" and "sensual woman" in : Indian literature and scripture. : : : : So this must have : : : been a man driven institution. However, I understand that in some : : temples : : : these women were expected to be virgins for life similar to the : : vestal : : : virgins of Greece. : : I, honestly, have never heard of that. I haven't seen one reference : to the idea that virginity was ever the goal. I'd be interested to : see the references for that, for it would be very new information for : me. : : : : This I can understand, but the idea of a bunch : : of women : : : in a temple deciding which married man to pick sounds a bit : : difficult to : : : stomach, at least for me :). : : My impression was that it was not exactly a "pick your favorite" sort : of option. I have not seen references that suggest that the women : were the sexual aggressors. Actually I haven't seen a real strong : connection to temple women having or not having sex at all. I see no : taboos against it, but I also haven't seen enough evidence to suggest : it was part of the job. : : I do see a link to dance and temple service - and payment for dance. : But even that hasn't been corrborated so many times that I'd say it's : true for every time and every place. : : Courtesans flirt, cajole and wheedle, but in the end it's the man : that made the choice. : : The idea of "independance" comes more from the concept that they did : have their own source of income - be it dancing or sex. They were : not dependant on a man for money, so they had control over how they : spent their profits. And had some control over who they didn't : sleep with. : : Honestly, though, I read about half the Kama Sutra advice to : courtesans and needed to put it away and find something happier. The : frank advice about how to manipulate a man into paying you lots of : money for sexual liasons, while basically undermining his self- : confidence and independance set my teeth on edge. The only thing I : can say for it, is it sounds like the reason the courtesan is so : manipulative is that the man can walk away at any time - seems like : something where it does take two to tango. : : -Beth
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL:

[Home] [How] [Why] [What] [Where] [FAQ] [Forum] [Journal]