Why is menstruation so dirty?

[IceBeing]

I got so much interesting information from my last thread I thought I would try again!

I mean I know the answer is 'the patriarchy' but....

why do I feel so repelled by all things menstrual? I am pretty sure I'm not alone...but while I would have no issue whatsoever with someone seeing a blood stain on my arm (from a cut or something) I would actually die from shame if anyone saw my menstrual blood.

How do I stop my DD from being infected with the idea that menstruation is dirty?

How do I cure myself?

I have managed to cure myself of the idea that armpit hair is dirty...and leg hair...but this seems an order of magnitude harder!

Oh, that's true.

But isn't that also because having a nosebleed is significantly messier, and because you know it will stop soon?

(This is a very medieval romance conversation, I'm loving it.)

"I find the idea of oral sex with a menstruating women revolting."

Still, I think this original point from you could have meant either what you might or might not do to a woman or what might or might not be done to you as a woman; I assume that was the original prompt for Jeanne's first question.

As you've clarified, you meant the latter.

PS I don't really like talking about sex acts being "done to" someone but I couldn't think of a clearer way to put it!

Was it romantic to have sex during nosebleeds in medieval times?

When do medieval times stop by the way?

Periods aren't dirty, quite the opposite - a good purge of the uterus which is healthy.

That said, the blood that's come out isn't particularly pleasant. People don't generally like blood. It's disposed of ASAP.

yonic - they stop at the moment of Richard III's death. There is legal consensus on it (they put it in the legal document about his remains). Every historian I know finds this hilarious, because we're simple folk and easily amused.

Realistically, erm, anywhere from about 1500 to 1550 in England, I guess? Depends on the country.

There's a romance about nosebleeds I was banging on about upthread. But seriously, I suspect in times past people have been less squeamish about sex with inappropriate bodily fluids around the place because modern medicine takes care of wounds/weeping sores/all this stuff I hide from threads because people are strange.

I know what you mean Yonic (apt name!) about "done to" but couldn't work out how best to say it either

I don't know about messiness of nosebleeds - I get them in summer quite frequently and they vary in severity

I think it's the association of other sorts of blood (and menstrual fluid isn't just blood on its own of course) with injury - menstrual blood isn't about injury. And I would worry about having sex with someone who is bleeding through injury (Obviously S&M type bloodletting is a separate thread).

Ah, fair enough. I don't think I've ever had one. They squick me out quite a bit.

Thinking back to the nosebleed story, (and bearing in mind I don't know anything more about it than what you've posted here so I expect this is far from new thoughts on the subject) I wonder whether the reason for that excuse is that servants and other people would have known her cycle, and/or would might have been able to tell the difference between menstrual blood on sheets and regular blood. Because for me they are different in appearance and smell.

I kinda imagine there wasn't much romantic about medieval sex that we could now identify with - all those living in one room/sex for pleasure is a sin even if married/ women are taboo during pregnancy / touch legs to symbolically consummate fandangos...

Gosh I thought everyone had had at least one. I don't know why I thought that, perhaps just because they are routine for me. Hayfever means I can easily get a nosebleed in the summer.

I think it's very likely servants would know her cycle. I find it telling, actually, that people generally don't advance that reading, because they don't think about the relationships between women.

In a later version of the story, it's explicitly clear that the queen's women know exactly what's going on with her lover, so I think it would be valid.

I was thinking that about Wolf Hall and the way it depicts miscarriage, too - they have Mary Boleyn say she'd immediately know if her sister were pregnant because she'd have to let out her dresses. And I know that those are precisely-fitted dresses, but actually, a corset usually gives you quite a bit of latitude to gain and lose an inch or two, and at two months you're not generally more than a tiny bit rounder than usual. So I think realistically, she'd have noticed Anne's periods stopping way before she'd notice her dress needing letting out.

It was an anachronistic slip up, but it also suggests a male-eye view of the situation, doesn't it? I find it hard to believe they'd think a reference to periods would be inappropriate, but maybe?

yonic - ok, I should shut up because I am totally derailing this thread, but first, can I share with you that lesbian nuns got ticked off for using strap-ons? Not that I find this deeply romantic, but it is a surprisingly modern image.

I don't think the corset reference was in the book, was it? I think it was for dramatic effect and so Mary could signal to TC at the wedding?

I am aware that menstual blood can be a bit of a fetish for some people.

Yes but not all guys feel exactly that way: Tolerate, Accept, Enjoy may all elicit similar behaviours but the internal feelings will be quite different. The male(?) terms I have seen used for what I would class as fetish interest are 'bloodhound' (for intercourse) and someone who loves their 'red wings' (cunnilingus). I am probably more or less just neutral about it (Accept). Always have been for no particular reason I know, just seemed like normal biology so what is the fuss. But I am no Moses, I would certainly draw back if I was witnessing a Red Sea before me.

Jeanne!

Chopper, I have never had a nosebleed. I think it's something people are prone to or not.

I was wondering what was in the book, and can't remember. Yes, it is for dramatic effect, but still.

just seemed like normal biology so what is the fuss - amen to that.

Ah, it is in there, Mary indicates to TC with her fingers after Calais, then he reflects that she always said she'd be the first to know because of her bodices. Presumably MB might help AB lace herself so would know if it wasn't so tight.

I suspect she was being delicate though!

I suspect HM was being anachronistic.

It could be Mary being delicate, but HM isn't wonderful on women (I do think she's amazing in general though).

One thing which would put me off menstrual cunnillingus is knowing someone has to do the laundry, and getting blood out of clothes or bedsheets can be a bit of a faff if you don't do it straight away and it's dried, and it would bother me even if I weren't going to be the one doing the laundry. I know that none of that is to do with sex per se, but then external things can quite often affect how people feel about sex, whether it's directly relevant or not. And I think that is probably partly why menstruation seems dirty, because it quite often does create extra laundry, and laundry is about getting things clean. Also, I am of an age where reaching puberty and being taught about the facts of life coincided pretty much exactly with the mid-'80s and AIDS, and we were all taught about the dangers of bodily fluids and particularly blood, and while we may now know that AIDS hasn't been quite as apocalyptic as feared, I think we are all far more aware of the risks of blood-borne infections and so on. Or maybe it's just me. STIs are on the rise, after all.

If I were with someone whose medical history I knew and therefore had as clear an idea as anyone can that they were free of known infections, then I don't see there's much difference between blood and sexual bodily fluids, risk wise. However, it's one thing while there's comparatively light flow, but as I've got older and periods heavier, I can't imagine wanting anyone going down on me when I'm getting through a tampon+pad combination every hour or two, and expelling great clots (they are quite impressive in their way, but not a sexual way), and likewise, I wouldn't want to go down on someone bleeding that heavily. Besides, it often comes with quite a bit of pain and discomfort, and I wouldn't be in the mood anyway. And I can understand there are people who would go for it (After all, there are people who are into golden showers and stuff), but as much as I can accept it as a fact, I just don't understand it at all. But blood seems rather less dirty than some more extreme fetishes.

(That year working in a medical library has its legacy.)

I don't know - I have walked through the office with a tampon in my hand on many occasions. Not very overtly, I don't wave it around, but just in my hand with my door pass and mobile phone. I admit an element of this is working in a male-dominated work-place, and if it embarrasses any of them, it would make me smile a little, not least because many of them are in heterosexual marriages with children. But also, if I'm wearing a t-shirt, I don't necessarily have a sleeve to hide it up (I do usually have trouser pockets available, mind you.) I also reckon if I just do it and don't make a fuss - well, after some years, I'm not aware of anyone actually noticing.

Just musing - not sure I have a point at all...

Hundreds of years ago it would have been very obvious if you were menstruating and people would have been able to smell you at 10 paces after a day or two, not to mention see it, before we thought to make pads out of straw or wool or whatever absorbent material was to hand.

I know this is way back on page 1, but it does seem to not quite hit the mark.

Menstruation was one of countless ways for humans to create an odour. People might have been able to 'smell you at 10 paces after a day or two', but so would they have been smelling everyone else, for a myriad different reasons.

I mean, if we're concerned about how women stemmed the menstrual tied back then, then we should also wonder how effectively everyone wiped their bottoms. And the answer is, 'not very effectively'. No toilet paper, right? No paper, in fact. A lot of pretty grim arses wandering around, not to mention soiled clothes.

By the time you add a general lack of washing of clothes and bodies, a lack of dental hygiene, dirty hair, cuts and wounds that are healing up, child vomit on clothes, etc, etc, it's a full-on melée of smells and aromas, more unpleasant, than pleasant.

So the suggestion that people might differentiate a menstruatuing women above and beyond everyone else at 10 paces, is naive at best.

Also, a lot of industry was more open - I'm thinking particularly of things like tanneries and tallow candle-makers. I believe tanneries traditionally had a very distinctive smell (I think they used dogshit as part of the processing, didn't they? And urine was used in fulling wool material.) Glue-making involved boiling up animal hooves and bones.

I am not sure what tallow smelt of (I've only known candles made of paraffin wax or beeswax), but I'm guessing rancid fat might feature. I am sure candle-makers must have been fairly common businesses, and they didn't have fridges to keep the rendered animal fat and so on in. Must have been especially delightful in summer. I should think a traditional shambles would have been lovely in a hot summer, too, all that blood running down the street. Fishmongers. No fridges, so fruit and veg would have started rotting sooner. All that manual labour, no modern deodorants. Lots of animals in the streets and so on. No modern sewers. No antibiotics, so if someone got an infection, it wouldn't clear up easily (if at all), and it could get smelly. Etc, etc, etc.

A bit of menstrual blood isn't going to be easily noticed in among all that.

It's a good point about all the other smells but I don't think we should assume they all had stinky arses - other alternatives to toilet paper work as well.

The thing is, though, the taboo doesn't really seem (to my knowledge, which is obviously patchy) to vary in correlation with what we know about how smelly different people at different times were. Maybe it's too simplistic of me to think it would, I don't know.

That's true, Countess - but I think we can safely assume there were probably enough only reasonably (as opposed to perfectly) well wiped arses going about their business, day-in-day-out - as opposed to menstruation - which only happens once a month.

It's more the very idea that menstruatuing women would stand out, above and beyond everyone else at that time due to their odour, that is extremely questionable!

Um, didn't women wear clouts (cloths) quite far back?