Talk:Droit du seigneur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Red Queen

Matt Ridley assumes it was a routine wedding-night practice in The Red Queen. If it's as questionable as our article suggests, it deserves additional attention. --Jerzy(t) 21:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

As far as I can see via Google books, he is only talking about chimps.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Staight dope

Parts of this feel like they were lifted from the Straight Dope link. I don't think it's severe enough to cry plagiarism, but another work-over might improve it. --Jnik 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latin legal phrases?

I removed the category Category:Latin legal phrases because Droit de seigneur is, of course, French. I added Jus primae noctis to the said category, and now everything works as it should: there is no Droit de seigneur on the category page, but Jus primae noctis appears instead, and redirects here. From http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1476 it appears that putting a redirect page into a category was not possible before.

On a related note: I find it slightly odd that the main article is not in fact titled Jus primae noctis, as I believe this term is more common. Google confirms this (note: also Ius primae noctis)... GregorB July 1, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

A leading property case book by Jesse Dukeminier of UCLA School of Law and James Krier of University of Michigan Law School quotes no less a legal authority than William Blackstone on the subject, "custom never existed in England, though it did in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III, successor to Macbeth." (Dukeminier & Krier, Property, Note 1, p. 214, referencing 2 Blackstone Commentaries *83). Seems to me a more reliable source than the "Straight Dope."

Long quotes

Do we really need those long quoted sections? They would be much better if they were paraphrased and condensed. I'd do it, but I don't have the time right now... Hbackman 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever since adding those block quotes, I've wished for paraphrases of them. It's the same with me, though: time. My philosophy is that it's better to have a long informative quote, than uninformative nothingness, sit before readers until it can be condensed. I might try shortening them soon. President Lethe 06:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't really know how to say this... The article suggests that jus primae nochtis this is a myth/rumour/just a tale. It references a ruling by a king and later mentions the king never existed. Overall it tries to have an "uncredible tone". --Boborok 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. :)

One of the sources in the "References" section is titled The Lord's First Night: The Myth of the Droit de Cuissage -- I'm guessing that that's where that tone came from. Do you have any sources that dispute this interpretation? If so, we can integrate those claims into the article to balance what's there currently.

Hbackman 06:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jus Primae Noctis is a myth, there's really no need to another "point of view" to make the article non POV - that would be like adding in a commentary in the article on dragons by someone who claims they really existed in the Middle Ages.

Pardon my expression, but could you fuck a mythical dragon, you pervert!? Dragons might have been myth(note that this article claims, that this might have been myth, which leans towards that it was quite real, but in far far distance in history), but virgins were not and over history there were a bunch of customs and rules how they were devirginified(fear of blood was quite strong).

Middle Ages span from 5th century till 15th(end of it, to be precise) century and in late middle ages Jus Primae Noctis might have not been practiced by most noblemen, because it is hard to impose it on peasants who are not serfs, as they can pack up and move to other lord, if they do not agree on this law. So, the part, where it is a myth is about existence of Jus Primae Noctis in Late Middle Ages(in western Europe), but hardly it is right to say, that it was not real during Early Middle Ages.

Jus Primae Noctis goes along serfdom wery well - when serfdom was instituted in Russian empire, there was rise of implementing Jus Primae Noctis in 18th-19th century(!). And unlike in western Europe, where people have no memory of serfdom existence and can claim the same, that it was myth, that was not that far in history in Russian Empire, to claim, that it was a myth along with myth of Jus Primae Noctis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.144 (talk • contribs) 21:35, October 22, 2018 (UTC)

Why I reverted Boborok's edit

Hi. I reverted Boborok's edit of 03:47 UTC, 12 April 2006, and said that I would be happy to explain why if asked. Boborok asked, and it seems appropriate that I post my answer here.

Boborok's first edit was changing

Latin for law (or right) of the first night

to

Latin for right of the first night.

Multiple sources back up the idea that Latin ius/jus can be translated into English as both law and right, and that this works with the term ius/jus primae noctis too. I'm happy to list some sources if anyone likes (though it probably won't happen until after I've slept some hours; it's late at night where I am). Also, a previous edition of this article had further words on the "right versus law" question:

While jus primae noctis may be translated as "right of the first night" or "law of the first night" (with law implying right or obligation or both), one may question the theory presented (but not originated) by Evans in terms of the droit de (or du) seigneur, in that droit is indeed French for right, a term not so easily applicable to something intended or perceived as a burdensome obligation—although perhaps the French appellation simply was applied to the concept without knowledge of its origin.

(Come to think of it, that was removed on March 15, accused of being incomprehensible; I'll restore it. I understand it; perhaps one of us who grasp it will render it in a better way.)

The next edit was changing the section "Possible explanations" to "Historical explanations". This was not a huge deal; but (1) all explanations of historical phenomena will be historical (at least in some ways of looking at it), and (2) the word possible helps remind readers that these explanations are uncertain theories (pointing this out helps keep the article NPOV).

The next edit was reducing

In fact the jus primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of a manor to share the bed with his peasants' newlywed brides on their wedding nights. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of disappearing status differences. Actual intercourse on behalf of the alleged right is difficult to prove. It probably never occurred.

The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th-century, Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins dwelling on the same." Legend has it that Saint Margaret procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called merchet. King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece included much clearly mythical material in his account. In literature from the 13th and 14th century and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th century, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. We have good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Germanic marriage customs.

to

The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In literature from the 13th and 14th century and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th century, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. We have good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Germanic marriage customs.

I don't entirely reject this edit. Perhaps I was lazy or hasty in simply undoing it (I offer some form of apology); still, regardless of whether the new, shorter version replaces the older, longer version, I find the passage wanting work—which I hope to do soon.

After that came some edits to the quotations from Harlots, Whores & Hookers. The first was to put the block quotations in italics; I undid a similar edit on 24 March 2006, pointing out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)."

Another edit in the Evans passage was to change

Since he is not subject to your gods, he may hope to escape unscathed from the ordeal; in any case, being [that of] a foreigner, his fate is no concern of yours.

to

Since he is not subject to your gods, he may hope to escape unscathed from the ordeal; in any case, being a foreigner, his fate is no concern of yours.

The reason for this bracketed insertion into Evans's text is to make the antecedent match the noun. "[H]is fate" is not "a foreigner": "his fate" is "[that of] a foreigner".

The next edits in the Evans text were the insertion of spaces around em dashes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) gives priority (at least in listing order) to dashes "Tight (unspaced) em dashes—like this." (It does show "Spaced em dashes — like this" second.) The Wikipedia:Manual of Style, itself, uses both spaced and unspaced em dashes—but those without spaces occur more often in that article. Unspaced dashes are also my personal preference. I would like to check how the book is actually printed, but it's not accessible to me tonight.

Then came the division of the "Other references to the right or its exercise" section into two: "Classic references to the right or its exercise" and "Modern references". The idea of dividing isn't inherently bad—though it does introduce the problem of editors' arguments about which list a reference belongs in. Example: why are the works of Patrick O'Brian, who died in 2000, under "Classic" while the work of George Orwell, who died in 1950, is under "Modern"? One might argue that it's because the Aubrey–Maturin novels are set during the Napoleonic Wars, while 1984 is set in 1984—except that Braveheart, a 1995 film, is set about the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries but appears under "Modern".

Finally, the name of the section "Reference" was expanded to "Reference works"—which strikes me as superfluous.

This article could indeed do with plenty of work. (Still, it's not horrible in the condition it's in—and I doubt that several of Boborok's edits were improvements.) In November 2005, I gathered many sources that mentioned this topic, with the plan of improving the article—but that month also saw the beginning of my hiatus from Wikipedia, and I've only recently returned.

Anyway, that's my explanation. No ill will intended to anyone. I don't mind discussing it more. Good night (or morning, afternoon, or evening), all.

President Lethe 06:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"incomprehensible paragraph-long sentence"

This paragraph was removed in March 2006, described as "incomprehensible":

While jus primae noctis may be translated as "right of the first night" or "law of the first night" (with law implying right or obligation or both), one may question the theory presented (but not originated) by Evans in terms of the droit de (or du) seigneur, in that droit is indeed French for right, a term not so easily applicable to something intended or perceived as a burdensome obligation—although perhaps the French appellation simply was applied to the concept without knowledge of its origin.

I restored it earlier today, saying that it provided information not found elsewhere in the article and that I was willing to try to clarify it soon. Here are some points to be found in the sentence, some of which exist elsewhere in the article and some of which do not:

• 1. Jus primae noctis can be rendered in English as both right of the first night and law of the first night.
• 2. In law of the first night, the word law can be read both as giving the lord the enjoyable privilege of deflowering the virgins and as giving the lord the burdensome obligation of deflowering the virgins.
• 3. The origin-of-the-custom theory presented in the Evans passage was not devised by Evans. (Other authors had published the same idea decades before Evans's book appeared.)
• 4. The French term is sometimes spelled droit de seigneur and sometimes spelled droit du seigneur. (Other parts of this article reveal a desire that the reader be presented with multiple possible spellings of important vocabulary.)
• 5. When we consider that the French term refers to a right (a privilege), not a duty, we may find questionable the explanation presented by Evans. (Remember that Evans's explanation was that it was a duty, not a privilege.)
• 6. But (1) maybe Evans is actually right about the origin, and (2) maybe the French name, involving the word right (droit), was applied to the custom without the understanding that the custom was about (or had its origins in) a duty, not a right.

I concede that the sentence is 86 words long and thrice descends into parentheses. But it's my opinion that the 86-word sentence is better for a Wikipedia article than the 6-point list I've just written is. Still, I'm happy to consider other renditions that present the same ideas. President Lethe 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If I have some time maybe I'll take a crack at it. I have to say that it took me about three tries through, going very carefully, to actually understand most of that sentence. I wasn't the one who took it out initially, but I think that it might be worth taking it out and working on it on the talk page until it's in a state that won't simply baffle most people who don't want to put in that much effort. Hbackman 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just brought the du/de point to the beginning of the article. Now to deal with the rest of the sentence:

Jus primae noctis may be translated into English as both "right of the first night" and "law of the first night"; law may imply right or obligation or both. The French version employs droit, which means right. With a name suggesting a right—a privilege—, the theory presented in Evans's work may seem dubitable: something perceived or intended as a burdensome obligation is unlikely to be called a right. However, it is possible that the French name for the practice was applied without knowledge of its origin.

How about that? Eighty-seven words. President Lethe 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

...wow, and all of a sudden it makes sense without your list of points! ;) That works much better. Hbackman 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dependence on Evans?

I'm relatively new to wikipedia although I've come to appreciate the awesome power of this encyclopedia. Reading this page, however, I feel that it is not on par with the neutral nature of the rest of the articles I have read. It seems that it is primarily Evans' points of view that are being presented instead of defining the meaning, origin and history of the subject matter at hand. I would suggest removing the oversized paraphrasal of Evans (which is currently almost half the article) and replacing it with a short paragraph explaining Evans' contention as one of the existing views on this topic. Although I haven't researched this field, I am pretty sure that many other views exist on the social meaning of the rights of first night and if this is so, then the state of the art in these studies may not be properly represented here. It's not that I think that Evans is wrong, but in the absense of other viewpoints, perhaps it is over-represented here, which may give the misleading impression that Evans is the only truth in this matter. Given my inexperience in this matter, I don't feel I have the right to alter this page. Instead, I am merely making this suggestion for any interested person to consider. Respectfully, J-Y

Hi there, J-Y.

In the future, please, sign your Talk contributions.

The passage from Evans, of course, isn't a paraphrasing but is a direct quote.

The point of view is actually not originated by Evans, and exists in many other scientific texts on the jus. I was the one who put the Evans passage in, last year, because, at the time, it seemed to me to convey the information better and more explicitly than other writers' passages giving the same idea. So, while there is some dependence on Evans for a decently readable and relatively concise direct quote, there definitely is not dependence on Evans as the originator or sole holder of the view that he expresses.

Last year, I gathered passages from many, many books about the jus. I've just yet to get around to synthesizing that information here.

You're right that we could have a broader range of sources and views in this article.

Part of the problem, at least in my memory of the dozens of books I looked in last year, is that most of literature that seems more scholarly and well referenced tends toward the same thing, the gist of which is "We're doubt that it was widespread in medieval Europe; and, where and when it has existed among human beings, it probably hasn't been as simple as just an arrogant guy loving to deflower virgins, and it may well have been considered more of a burdensome duty than a privilege, while the other class of sources seems to be mostly tracts about how humanity has always given women and girls the short end of the stick, and with noticeably less citing of other sources.

If you have some third-party research on the matter, do, please, see about adding it to the article and/or discussing it at this Talk page. And, of course, this will work better when you cite specific authors, works, page numbers.

I don't have any personal stake in this. I don't know what the truth about the droit is; and the truth may have been different in various times and cultures. And I don't benefity or suffer either way, whether it was a bunch of men being nasty to women or it wasn't something so simple or uglily motivated. I'm just into presenting what we can find in other, reputable sources, which is what Wikipedia (I'm glad you like it) is supposed to be all about. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to incorporating things from the many passages I read.

Enough from me for now.

President Lethe 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the lengthy passage from our expert on the paranormal, Hilary Evans, is that it is completely speculative. He does not even try to establish a connection to the "defloration" rites he mentions from other cultures. This isn't surprising, since he has to go as far away as Fourteenth Century Tibet and Third Millenium BC Mesopotamia to find what he thinks must be an anthropological analogy. I was going to attempt to recontextualize Evans' comments, but after I saw the UFO stuff, I realized I was looking at a kook. If Durant has some evidence for his beliefs, that would be interesting, but even then, I question whether he should get half the article. I see I'm not alone. The Evans blurb just screams "nutjob" in the middle of the article.

If there's no more suitable source for this idea, maybe it would suffice to just say, "Some scholars have speculated that the rite of primae noctis did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia and Fourteenth Century Tibet."

Peace,

Ocanter 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ocanter.

1. Let's try to avoid an edit battle.

2. How do you know whether it's the same Evans? (I'm not saying it's not. I simply haven't found a source to confirm it reliably for me, and am asking you.)

3. As has been said at least twice before on this Talk page and in at least one edit summary for the article, this is not Evans's theory.

4. Are we to believe that a person who writes books about UFOs is incapable of making a summary of theories posited by several other scholars before him, and on an entirely different subject? Perhaps we should start being sure to weed out anything that has been repeated by those interested in finding out what, if anything, of the Atlantis story is true, and those who write about taking various religious texts, including the Bible, as literal history (especially if they not only write about it but suggest that it's the right thing to do). Should we assume that someone who crazily denies the Holocaust shouldn't be trusted to write a book on baking pies or using Adobe Photoshop?

5. The reason for going back so far in history is that this practice isn't restricted to medieval Europe and definitely existed elsewhere and earlier. Why should an article on a practice be restricted only to that practice's possible existence in one period and one place?

6. Most views on the motivation behind the droit are based on theorizing about individual and group psychology, making use of extant evidence. Academic freedom is looking at, mentioning, and discussion the merits and problems of all theories, without proselytizing about any of them.

7. For a long time, we've been waiting on a condensation of this passage that presents the chain of ideas well enough without being just a long quotation (including another long quotation). Feel free to give it a shot. I think your suggested version insufficiently describes the scholarship on the idea.

8. Our job here is to present reputable ideas in the somewhat murky subject of when, where, why, and how this practice has existed.

9. Basically, (1) it seems all are in favor of condensing the presentation of these ideas; (2) this same idea about the droit is expressed in many scholarly works covering several decades and antedating Evans's; and (3) in topics such as this, with areas of uncertainty, we present the various ideas, relying more heavily on those conveyed in the reputable scholarly works that have plenty of citations to back up their contentions, and we don't espouse one as the truth and the others as "just theories". (And let us not forget that theory is not necessarily the antonym to fact (nor is it necessarily its synonym): if I theorize that pine trees are a race of undersea Nazis, my theory is far from fact; if I theorize that pine trees are coniferous plants that grow on land, my theory is a fact; if I theorize that pine trees' evolutionary descendants will one day be capable of walking on their superterranean roots—who knows?)

President Lethe 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pres,

Since you seem to have access to more credible sources than Hilary Evans, why don't you post a (brief) summary of the theory and a proper footnote to one or more of those sources? Better yet, why don't you start an article on ritual defloration and link to that?

1. OK.

2. http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search%5FArg=evans%2C%20hilary&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=21219&BROWSE=2&HC=38&SID=1

3. You keep referring to these other, more credible sources. Why don't you post references to them?

4. By mentioning Evans' writing on "the paranormal," I didn't mean so much to poison the well as to explain the dubious nature of his statements, which I had already recognized at first glance. The kind of confidence he was placing in his speculative anthropological analogy, without even mentioning any sort of evidence, is typical of kooks. So I looked up his other books, and sure enough, I found he was a kook. Sorry, make that, "expert on the paranormal."

5. This is a petitio principii. You are implying that the various practices in Tibet, Mesopotamia, and Medieval Europe were in fact the same practice. That is the very thing Evans is trying to argue. It sounds like you mean to make the article a broader discussion of defloration rituals. It seems like that deserves a new article.

6. OK... I'm not saying we should present the theory, only that it should be presented better. A neat summary with proper references would be great.

7. Such a summary is already in the article, although it's not well organized at the moment. I will make a minor edit, and I think you'll see what I mean.

8. You forgot one word: "whether."

9. (1) Yes. (2) Please summarize and provide proper citations to these reputable authors. (3) Yes.

Peace,

Ocanter 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Ocanter.

There are three reasons for my not yet posting other sources: time limitations; lack of access for the last several months to almost all of my books, which are in storage because of multiple house movings; failure of one of my computer hard-disk drives.

There seems to be an issue here about categories and subcategories of defloration rituals, including the idea of the droit as a "right" in mediaeval Europe and the idea of a "responsibility" in other (and maybe the same) times and places. I think this warrants more discussion. It seems to me that designating someone to deflower the virgins, for whatever reason, all fits into the category of the droit/jus—just as humans eating humans would fit into the category of cannibalism, whether it was done just for fun or for sexual pleasure or for survival or for religious reasons. But, obviously, at least one person seems to prefer to call the larger category "defloration rituals"—and am I right that you want to restrict the droit/jus to this mediaeval European thing?

In your point 6, is there a "not" missing? I'm not being rhetorical; I'm asking so that I understand it properly.

To your point 7: Go ahead. Various persons have been toying with this article, separately and together, for a long time; and it's still very wanting. Improvement is welcome, though of course we may argue about what is or isn't an improvement.

To your point 8: I did not. "Where" includes "nowhere"; "when" includes "never" (or "if ever"); "how" includes "in no way"; and "why" includes "for no reason".

It's possible that I have at least some of the sources that present the same ideas as Evans in some computer backups. I'll check within the next few days.

I'm glad we're talking about this here, instead of just reverting with little edit summaries.

President Lethe 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I reorganized the discussion of the anthropological analogies under a new heading, and I added a some ethnography from Herodotus. I also added a full reference to the book on prostitution by our UFO enthusiast friend. Please feel free to reorganize and add more references if you have time. Thanks for the information. I am interested in hearing more.

There was indeed a "not" missing in my post above. I just added it. Thanks.

--Ocanter 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh: the stuff about "kooks".

I understand that a person's (in)credibility in one area is likely, in many persons' eyes, to bleed into other areas. But this view isn't always warranted.

It seems that, until very recently, you didn't know that Evans wrote on UFOs (and was thus a "kook"); your repeated mentioning of his other writings as (seemingly) a reason not to believe anything he's written seems premature.

Your incredulity is understandable, but not necessarily well founded.

A child may be a liar; a child may lie every day about how those peas vanished so quickly from the plate at dinner—but it doesn't mean that the child is also lying about how its nose was bloodied yesterday afternoon. If the lies about the peas make us leery of believing the child about the bloody nose, we seek other evidence, rather than simply saying "Because person x said it, it is, I know, not true."

As to his not mentioning any sort of evidence: besides that he offers a direct quote from another author, his book also has a not-short bibliography. Tons of quotations in Wikipedia don't show that the source of the quotation was also relying on other sources: but this doesn't automatically mean that the quote is bad and based on too little.

Anyway, it seems that you have shown more that, because you don't trust him about UFOs, you don't trust him about defloration rituals, and less that the information in his statements is inherently dubitable.

The information may be entirely false—but let the truth or falsity stand or fall because of what it is, not because of who repeated it.

President Lethe 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I already answered that objection. I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe Evans because he writes about UFO's, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. (By that reasoning, we shouldn't believe Herodotus either, because he writes about centaurs!). I'm saying that 1) the fact that he has more experience writing for a slightly less disciplined audience may help explain why he offers no evidence for his tenuous analogy between jus primae noctis and the Tibetan custom, and 2) we should really look for a source who has more credentials in the field of anthropology or Medieval history.

I'm not opposed to discussing customs from other traditions. I just want to be clear when we are making analogies. I felt that Evans was asserting that the customs were in fact the same thing, arising from a common psychological need, if not a common cultural origin. I thought that might be misleading, unless we made it clear that we were discussing anthropological analogies. I hope that makes sense.

--Ocanter 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Ocanter.

Your latest edits to the article look helpful to me, though a few of your direct quotations aren't verbatim (I'll fiddle with that, along with making some things conform more to Wikipedia style).

I'm concerned about this, though: "Some scholars have speculated that the jus primae noctis did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia or Thirteenth Century Tibet (Evans 1979:30)." Despite the lengthy blockquote, I see that, without the context, it's difficult to tell that Evans was not talking about the medieval European droit de seigneur when he mentioned it: he was specifically talking about older things, from other parts of the world. In that area of Harlots, Whores & Hookers, Evans isn't really getting into the matter of medieval European stuff. So I think citing Evans for a statement that it existed (in medieval Europe, which is what the rest of this article seems to be about) doesn't work: because Evans's focus wasn't about medieval Europe. (Again, this gets us to the matter of how many places and periods to include in this article—whether to restrict this article to medieval Europe.)

I'm also concerned about "in which 'the community rallied around to support the individual,' i.e., the virgin being deflowered (Evans 1979:30)." I'm not sure that Evans means that "the individual" is the ‘defloweree’: he may mean that, or he may mean that "the individual" is the ‘deflowerer’. If defloration is a heavy act for both parties, then either one, or both, of them—the deflowerer and the defloweree—may need community support.

President Lethe 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

About the "kooks" again. My most recent post on the matter was indeed written after you'd "already answered that objection". To me, your answer (the one about not poisoning the well) came across as "Because I say I don't mean to poison the well, I'm not poisoning the well. And, anyway, if you write about UFOs, you are a kook, and, if you are a kook, you're not to be believed about anything else either."

Now you seem to say that those who read books about UFOs (whether the books say extraterrestrial aliens are visiting Earth all the time or have never visited the Earth and are unlikely ever to do it) are less "disciplined" (than those who read about the droit?).

"he offers no evidence for his tenuous analogy between jus primae noctis and the Tibetan custom". As I read it, he's not necessarily drawing a connection or an analogy, but rather is saying the Tibetan custom is the droit/jus (in this case, handed off to visiting strangers); he's not necessarily drawing a connection between the medieval European possibility and the custom on the Marquesan islands, but rather is saying it is the droit/jus. ... Again, this gets us back to whether we restrict the definition to medieval Europe.

"I felt that Evans was asserting that the customs were in fact the same thing, arising from a common psychological need, if not a common cultural origin." I agree with you on this.

Anyway, I still don't entirely sympathize with your basing your rejections on a book that, it seems, you haven't read and a list of other books you haven't read. But I grasp that it's better to go back to the sources on which Evans and others rely; and, as I said, I'll try to recreate some of this resource-gathering.

I think a discussion of how to restrict or expand the definition of the droit/jus in this article is still warranted.

President Lethe 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite right on both counts. I think he does mean the deflowerer. Regarding the other point, I just made an edit that you might like better, which doesn't seem to imply that the article is only about the European Medieval tradition. That done, however, I think the article should be mainly about the European Medieval tradition, and that there should be another article, if necessary, on the general concept of defloration customs, as well as articles on each related custom, if there is interest. I came to the article looking for information on the Medieval legend. The information about analogies is interesting, but I think it should be clear when we are talking about the jus primae noctis, in the sense of the Medieval tradition (which I think is the primary meaning of that term), and the broader notion of ritual defloration in general. I would prefer two articles, but I think at least we should have a separate heading. If we make the article about defloration rituals in general, I think we are implying that jus primae noctis was in fact one of many such rituals in which the community welcomed a hero to deflower the virgin. That is far from established.

I think part of the problem people had with the long quote from Evans was that it was out of nowhere and really long. People thought we were talking about the Medieval legend, and then, all of a sudden, like a UFO, Evans hits us with his "theory." I think as long as we make it clear what we're talking about, it will be fine. There actually is a "defloration" article, in the "sex-related" area. I think a lengthy discussion of Evans' idea would fit great there, since his theory deals primarily with the psychological need that the various customs are purported to fill.

Note, too, that even Evans uses the term defloration to describe the general worldwide phenomenon, whereas he uses jus primae noctis to describe, specifically, the Medieval European tradition. I think it would be misleading to attempt to redefine the term here to encompass all the other traditions.

Premarital exams a form of ius primae noctis?

This day, I created an part of the article, entitled "The droit de seigneur in modern times". It was entirely based on two articles: one of C.H. Lewis, which apeared in the distinguished Journal of Women's History, and one of Nadina R. Kavinoky, which apeared in the famous Jama, that is "Journal of the American Medical Association". I've put these sources in footnotes, and thus my contribution is well-documented. These journals, at least the recent article of ms. Lewis, can retrieved from the electronic texts in any large or university library. I understand my contribution is hard to believe, but it is the proven truth. So Preslethe, I am replacing my contribution. You said in the history "this is fascinating, really. but, besides that the writing isn't quite up to WP:MOS, some points make it obviously false or at least hyperbole. " Again, my contrib is thoroughly researched and unless you come with counterprove, it stands as it stands. By the way, it is not wikipedian to remove a well-documented contribution without mentioning anything on the discussion page. If there are any errors in the contrib, please discuss it here. Thank you in advance. 80.127.8.111 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kavinoky's article is an attempt to present as normal her unusual and possibly abusive physical mistreatment of her patients. A competent doctor would know that in normal corcumstances, the proper instrument of a bride's deflowering is the groom. The most generous interpretation one can put on Kavinoky's behavior is that she was ignorant and misguided--and the worst, that she was sexually sick. The method she employed (inserting fingers and medical instruments in her patient's vagina) was used by most doctors only on very rare occasions, when the married couple were unable to consummate their marriage because the bride's hymen was resistant. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, 80.127.8.111. Your contribution in question is

The droit de seigneur reappeared in the 1950's in the United States in a supposedly non-sexual form: the obligatory pre-marital medical examination of virgins . Officially, the exam was instituted to monitor for venereal diseases, but soon, under influence of Freud the highly-esteemed medical professionals began training the brides in penile penetration. Obstetrician-gynaecologist Nadina Kavinoky thoroughly described the procedure every white middle-class virgin had to undergo: first she would be made familiar with the vaginal muscles and she would be taught how to relaxe them, guided by the physicians finger. Once the patient had been taught to control herself, it was time for the second step in the premarital pelvic examination: the physician would penetrate her vagina with a well-lubricated medical instrument witch would stretch the hymen. This penetration had a purpose: the virgin would learn that penetration wasn't painful. Then, the virgin had to bear down and insert the instrument even further into her vaginal canal. The physician would only stop the 'exercise' after the virgin wasn't fearful anymore.

This method became the medical standard for the next two decades. Arnold Kegel was another advocate of this method using his Kegel exercises.

Due to the obligatory nature of the exam, it's considered to be legalised-mass rape.

I saw the citations the first time. Citing sources, even those such as the JAMA, doesn't make your contribution, in its present state, appropriate for inclusion.

"every white middle-class virgin" is simply untrue. Even if it's restricted to "every white middle-class virgin with a plan soon to be married" (which it isn't, in your text), it would be untrue.

"penetration wasn't painful" is not necessarily true, but is presented in wording that almost makes it come across as a sweeping fact.

"the medical standard" needs qualification.

The two "obligatory"s need qualification.

Placement of "exercise" in quotation marks may come across as a POV implication that "exercise" was an inappropriate word. Even rape itself is an exercise. Nearly any human action is an exercise.

Arguably, "penile penetration" should be changed to "vaginal penetration". Even if we are talking about the penetrator, rather than the penetratee, it is, as described, not a penis but a finger and a mysteriously unnamed "medical instrument".

There's also a strange leap in wording that makes it seem that Kegel exercises (in reality, simply clenching and relaxing muscles) were a form of this penetrative technique. Clearly, working one's own pubococcygeus muscles is not the same as being penetrated by a physician's finger or a medical instrument. Would we say that every woman who performs Kegel exercises is raping herself?

And "it's considered to be legalised-mass rape" doesn't pass Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, besides the fact that the standard meaning of rape here doesn't include consenting to a doctor's penetration of one's vagina with a finger and a medical instrument and then autodigital penetration.

(The WP:MOS changes would be (1) italicization of the French; (2) removal of the apostrophe in the decade; (3) removal of the spaces around the superscript immediately after "virgins"; (4) insertion of the opening parenthetic comma immediately before "soon"; (5) insertion of the closing parenthetic comma immediately after "Freud"; (6) the full name of Freud and (7) linking to the article's actual name; (8) removal of the hyphen between the adverb "highly" and the adjectival participle "esteemed"; (9) not linking to the nonexistent article about Kavinoky; (10) standard spelling of "relax"; (11) an apostrophe for the possessive form of "physician"; (12) standardization of the variants "pre-marital" and "premarital"; (13) removal of the hyphen between the adverb "well" and the adjectival participle "lubricated"; (14) insertion of the comma before the non-defining relative pronoun; (15) replacement of "witch" with "which"; (16) expansion of the contraction "it's"; and (17) removal of the hyphen between "legalised" and "mass". I'd also change "vaginal canal" to "vagina".)

There are other sweeping statements, such as that of the "only" condition under which the doctor would stop the procedure.

I welcome the rewriting of your contribution without the clearly inapplicable absolutes, the weasel words, and the deviations from the WP:MOS.

I was quite serious when I said it was fascinating. I'd like to read more about this. But this version of the contribution has such obvious errors of fact that it should stay on the Talk page until it's in a form appropriate for the actual article.

President Lethe 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Preslethe: I will replace my contrib, altered according to your suggestions, although, maybe that's actually your job. If you would have taken the time to read the article of Ms. Lewis, you would have read that these doctors weren't interested in other brides than virginal whites of middle class. Fortunately for the others. Even if a white didn't have her hymen anymore, she wouldn't be examined. And last, the exam was obligatory by law. I live in civic law, so I don't know exactly how it was in common law. Read the article of ms. Lewis I would say. And thus, because it was obligatory, it was *not* consentual, thus it was rape. Again, I will replace a edited version in a few days. If you want to better it yourself, please, be my guest. 80.127.8.111 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess btw. You're a medstudent? 80.127.8.111 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, 80.127.8.111.

When I say "every white middle-class virgin" is simply untrue, I'm complaining not about "white" or "middle-class" or "virgin", but about "every".

The 'civic (civil?) law / common law' distinction you mention doesn't make sense to me here.

This "obligatory" stuff needs to be limited to the specific jurisdictions, circumstances, and periods of time—so that readers can reconcile your statements with the fact that millions of white middle-class American virgin brides-to-be managed to get legally married in the period 1954–1973 (I'm guessing at that period from the "two decades" you mention and the 1954 date of the JAMA article) without undergoing this procedure.

President Lethe 14:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, even if there was no consent, the legal and cultural definitions of rape then and now varied over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; so, again, "it's considered [* * *] legalised[ ]mass rape" would need qualification to be closer to an accurate description of the truth—and then it would still need changes to avoid legitimate "Weasel words" accusations. — President Lethe

You also said your contribution "was entirely based on two articles" and "it is the proven truth". Wouldn't (shouldn't) something that happened to every virginal white middle-class American bride-to-be for two recent decades of the twentieth century be supported in more scholarly literature than just two journal articles? Also, as we all know, being reported in the JAMA and the Journal of Women's History doesn't automatically make something true and confer infallibility on anyone who reads and repeats the reports. And, though I haven't read the two articles and thus can't be sure, I have a feeling that your contribution may be (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresenting crucial data from the articles on which it's based. — President Lethe 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As to whose job it is to replace and alter your contribution: it seems that, at the moment, you're the one with better access to the articles on which it's based. — President Lethe 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read Kavinoky's article, it doesn't support your point at all--and neither does Lewis's.

Carolyn Lewis's article cites Kavinoky's article (and many others) as evidence that mid-century physicians believed that vaginal orgasm was essential to female psychological health, successful marriages, and even a well-run society in general. In her words: "Physicians repeatedly asserted that by monitoring a woman's response to penetration during a premarital pelvic exam, they could anticipate her ability to experience vaginal orgasm during intercourse. A sexually fulfilling relationship, physicians explained, was the foundation of marital stability. These marriages would then serve as the building blocks or a morally, and therefore politically, secure nation during the early decades of the Cold War." Lewis argues that this misguided effort to ensure that all women had happy married sex lives was symptomatic of America's bizarre sexual obsessions at the time. A few other feminist writers have argued that what Lewis really demonstrated was a deliberate campaign against homosexuality and/or sexual freedom, but even they don't consider it to be rape. (although I'm sure the fringe minority that believes all heterosexual sex is rape presumably would).

As for Dr. Kavinoky's article, her article does not "thoroughly describe... the procedure every white middle-class virgin had to undergo." She thoroughly describes a procedure that she offered for woman who were fearful of their wedding night. By the 1960s, physicians knew that most women could have intercourse without pain and bleeding if they were relaxed, but many could not if they were overly anxious or fearful--which, unfortunately, many of them were. There were a variety of treatments for this, from psychotherapy to surgical cutting of the hymen, but Kavinoky believed that the best way to alleviate her patients' fear was to show them that she had nothing to fear.

While the procedure does sound somewhat bizarre (although not as much as the early 20th century physicians who would "administer electromechanical clitoral vibration" to cure neuroses), there were some women who thought it sounded like a good idea, and were happy with the results. Kavinoky's procedure didn't exactly become "the medical standard," but it wasn't all that rare.

There probably were a fair number of naive women who decided to take these various "exercizes" even though they didn't need them, but none of this was forced on anyone. Kavinoky has a collection of letters and thank-you cards from her patients--some of whom asked to be referred to her. Women don't generally seek to be raped and write thank-you cards afterward.

By the way, Kavinoky has been involved in a more famous controversy. She was at one point famous among feminists and civil rights activists for helping Mexican-American women gain access to contraception, and later excoriated as a racist and eugenicist for exactly the same deeds. Make of that what you will. --75.36.140.83 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Several sentences in the article are lifted directly from http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm and should be edited.

If you'll list the exact sentences, I'll fiddle with them. — President Lethe 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Evenus III

Removed the "link" to Evenus III since there is no article by that name in Wikipedia and since the article, itself, states that there was no such person. I did find the link below when searching, though I suspect it is not related to this discussion given that (apparently extensive and credible) research has discerned that the Evenus III mentioned by Boece was fictional.

http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0198a.html

Anyone read Latin?

The book at the link you found is a 1698 encyclopaedia listing three Scottish kings by the name of Evenus and citing George Buchanan's History of Scotland. As the WP page on Buchanan notes, he tried to purge Boece's history of its inaccuracies. Buchanan's book is available online in both Latin and English. The passage on Evenus III is here:

http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/scothist/4eng.html#22

See also Sutton's introduction to Buchanan, including the note on Boece's sources:

http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/scothist/intro.html

I think it's fair to say you can't list Evenus III as a "King of Scotland". Whether the legend is completely false or based on truth is another question.

Zip-x (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned on office

Prima Nocta was verified by Jim Halpert on Wikipedia. Oh yeah! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.245.249 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Ya beat me to it!! --Patinthehat1 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference. It was only mentioned in the episode, the episode wasn't actually about prima nocta. Besides that, it was a self reference. Pretty funny, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up to make it less-self-referential and read better.

I think, though, if the Terry Pratchett ref can stay, so can this one (It also seems relevant to the discussion of the widespread confusion of the two concepts mentioned in the intro).

There ought to be some sort of template like {{onlinesource}} for this (as it's not the first time Wikipedia's figured on a US sitcom, and I doubt it'll be the last) Daniel Case 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in popular culture does just fine. -- Zanimum 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

Probably due to several editings, the 1st three sentences are contradictory and should be fixed for smoother reading.--Jack Upland 10:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

-- The article states "In the film, Edward I of England, 'Longshanks,' exercises the jus primae noctis." But if I recall correctly (and I'm not at all sure I do; I actually think the film was basically crap, and haven't seen it in ages) it's not Edward but the local baron who exercises this right. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -R. fiend 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward decrees it, but it is the locals who actually practice it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is rubbish. Thank Sir Walter Scott for it. It even appears in George Orwells 1984 as one of the myths the party teach people about capitalists in the past, so its mythical status has been apreciated for a while. If a lord tried to enforce this right he would be murdered as rapists often were. Mel Gibsons film is a travesty.--86.20.241.236 10:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo

How is this even relevant??? Shouldn't the reference to him be removed???--Jack Upland 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In modern times

(Not about the US gynaecologic examination, see Premarital exams a form of ius primae noctis discussion above.)

This habit was mentioned by a Czech physician who worked for a year in a hospital in Gaborone, Botswana, in a June 2007 interview (in Czech). The local tribes chieftains demand it because of the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. The interview is not a sufficient reference (it merely mentions it as one of the reasons why AIDS spreads so fast there) but if properly documented it may get mentioned as a customary and practised rule. Pavel Vozenilek 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

The article makes it seem like Droit de seigneur is a bad thing. My primary issue is the picture caption, words like 'the poor old man' and 'despotic feudal lord'. If someone could rewrite for facts, it would be much appreciated 66.212.199.222 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote the NPOV points I was able to identify.--Dali-Llama (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)