Talk:Courtesan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Sex work task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

I hate to say it, but this article seems factually incorrect on a number of points. I am far from an expert, but it has always been my impression that tradtional Courtesans were not necessarily prostitutes, and that while many did engage in intimacy for profit, it was not the primary purpose of their employment. Rather, they were entertainers of a sorts. --68.81.2.64 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Removed reference to lobbyists - not npov. Although I suppose a connection could be drawn, it's a stretch to have it here under "courtesan." If you want to add it back, suggest it be sourced. Downtown diana 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)



I added Sophia Baddeley to the list of famous courtesans and the birth/death dates for Catherine Walters.

Wallis Simpson as a courtesan? WTF? Eriathwen 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several women here who were mistresses, not courtesans. I have no idea why Mary Boelyn is on this page either. Just having a sexual relationship with a monarch makes you a mistress...not a courtesan.

Someone really needs to give that list some heavy editing. I'm not a historian at all, I don't feel comfortable doing it. But there is an extreme confusion here between courtesan and royal mistress. I hope it is attended to. The rest of the article is well done, but the list is extremely misleading.

Contents

[edit] Grammar

The grammar in this article is quite poor and needs revision. It's also extremely verbose and is thus quite hard to read.

[edit] Needs big time attention with a view to attribution, NPOV, and accuracy

Many of the women listed as "courtesans" are in fact simply mistresses of but one man, and would never be referred to as courtesans by anyone who knew anything about the subject. I've removed some of the more obvious offenders, but clearly we need some sort of criterion for inclusion here. At the very least there should be some citation demonstrating that the woman was referred to as a courtesan widely, during her lifetime. Also needing attention are the links to this article: someone has taken the trouble to pepper Wikipedia with links labelling various women as "courtesans" by linking them to this article. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understood the term, it only referred to the Western equivalent of the Oiran, so I think this article would benefit from some extensive editing. Zuiram 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a bit over-sensitive, but the following in the third paragraph in the introduction seemed a bit odd:

Courtesans also provided an outlet for restless husbands and helped bring men back to healthy heterosexuality.

Now is the author of this quote implying that homosexuality is unhealthy? Or perhaps, the author meant "healthy sexuality" in that men would be certain to be with STD-free women. I understand that the norms of the era (and to a degree, today) demanded only heterosexual behaviour, but I think that this sentance is worded poorly.--Gatsby 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just add quotes around "healthy", and I think it should be okay, although I haven't seen anyone state anything in this direction. Assuming good faith, the author probably wanted to point out the common view at the time, rather than state that homosexuality is unhealthy. Zuiram 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


152.42.142.1 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article makes a lot of presumtions that do not accurately describe a courtesan. The role of a courtesan includes more than sexual services. The other comments accurately point out that this article includes women who were more of mistresses than courtesans. Also, courtesans exist in more than Western Europe during the Renaissance—the geishas of Japan, most famously, as well as the tawaifs of northern India during Muslim rule were also courtesans.

A courtesan is a woman with at least one artistic or social specialty (such as singing or dancing) as well as an adept conversationalist. While sexual intercourse does play into their relationship with their patrons, there is much emphasis on their role as companions, not as prostitutes. Like in any other profession, there are a wide range of courtesans, who could be little more than prostitutes or could be some of the best contemporary artists. Women chose the profession or were forced into it due to social situations. For example, a widowed woman in Indian society had little choice if her husband died young. Becoming a tawaif (Indian courtesan) supported her economically and socially.

Some prestigious courtesans in all cultures became the main companion—virtually a wife—to influential politicians and businessmen. However, because sexuality, marriage, and chastity are often separate from each other, courtesans have become stigmatized.


-dd

152.42.142.1 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's not just this article

I visited the Mary Boleyn page because someone here mentioned it and found that she was referred to as a courtesan as well. I think that pretty much every article about a royal mistress from that period will need AT LEAST some touching up. The most egregrious offenders will of course have to be overhauled by a historian or some sort of researcher if we're going to be running an actual encyclopedia here and not just a repository of lies. Smith Jones 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an innocent mistake that some make. I've had people use "courtesan" incorrectly as a person of a royal court. The thinking is COURTesan=COURT. Let's not jump the gun and assume good faith. Angrynight 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OKAY! Smith Jones

[edit] Trimmed out some repetition

I removed the following paragraphs that are largely repetition:

"Most often, those who were able to sustain the longest life to their career were those who could maintain their attractive appearance, converse on a number of topics, and who had a pleasing presence, always with the intention of rising through the ranks of royalty eventually saddling themselves with one powerful benefactor, as opposed to those who served many. Often, in those cases where they served one powerful benefactor, they were semi-official in their position as mistress, known both publicly and within the society or royal circles as being his mistress, and often giving birth to children fathered by their benefactor, thus better sealing their hold.

When reaching a high position as lover to a wealthy and powerful benefactor, courtesans often wielded considerable power behind the scenes, especially if their lover was of royalty or a monarch. At times, this was used to benefit members of their family in attaining strong political positions or property, and often to their own benefit as well. Many courtesans would often take advantage of this power, thus angering other people of power. Upon the death or fall of their benefactor to whom their security depended, they would often find themselves eliminated either through exile or execution, or in some cases they were given the mercy of being given in arranged marriage to a lesser noble. Those who were best able to maintain life as a courtesan after a fall from grace, were those who dabbled little in politics, and who did not take advantage of the power they were briefly given.

Courtesans who were never able to rise to that solid position of reaching a top benefactor would usually find themselves a mistress to a powerful benefactor for a time, then slowly decline, serving lesser nobles or persons of wealth, eventually retiring altogether, either by their own choice or being forced into seclusion. With any luck, they had managed their finances well and were in a good position financially when time for retirement came. In some cases, they would receive a retirement income for their services. But most often, they retired with little or no money left over from their services, and many died in poverty. Often, when a courtesan saw that her days were numbered, she would then work toward settling down in marriage with a benefactor of lesser wealth and power, but none the less wealthy. In some cases, courtesans had entered into that lifestyle by way of prostitution, and often they would return to that lifestyle after being retired as a courtesan, simply as a way of making a living. [1]"

In addition, I noted the following:

  1. "Courtesans also provided an outlet for restless husbands and helped bring men back to "healthy" heterosexuality." Back from what? Unhealthy heterosexuality? Homosexuality? And why put quotes around "healthy"?
  2. "Essentially, there were two types of courtesans. They were known in France as the cortigiana onesta, who were the intellectual courtesans and the cortigiana di lume, who were the lower-class courtesans. The latter were considered little more than prostitutes of a higher order, whereas the former were often romanticized and considered almost equal to women of royalty. It is with these that the art of courtisanerie is best associated." It seems incongrouous to say that courtesans were known in France by Italian terms.

ChrisWinter 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Boleyn

I agree that Mary Boleyn wasn't necessarily a courtesan, because her affairs were only with two monarchs and she certainly didn't reap any spectacular profit from either. But I don't think it was a confusion with "courtier," but rather a commentary on how she was perceived by some of her contemporaries (especially the French king, allegedly her ex-lover) and her infamous sobriquet of being a "prostitute." Gboleyn

[edit] Tokyo Rose?

While not an expert on the subject, I have never in my life heard an informed person refer to "Tokyo Rose" as a courtesan. I think that ought to be trimmed out. 128.194.84.196 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DOES TOKYO rose have an artlcE? if so, i remember reading that wikipedia can use itself as sources rpvoided that hte article being ussed as a source is cited properly. Smith Jones 05:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is such an article, and you know it. No, Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. Each article needs to cite its own external sources. 128.194.84.196 is completely correct; Iva Toguri D'Aquino has in all probability never been called a courtesan, and certainly isn't in her Wikipedia article. AvB ÷ talk 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June Rose Bellamy

Yesterday I added the name of June Rose Bellamy, and she hasn't been deleted - which surprises me. Probably she will be after I add this explanatoin, but the story is interesting, so here goes:

June Rose was the daughter of an Ausrtalian bookie who made a fortune at the racerack in Mandalay (Myanmar) in the early years of the 20th century. Her mother was a royal princess, which isn't so grand as it sounds - King Thibaw and his brothers and cousins (I believe there were over 80 of them) had left Mandalay well supplied with minor royalty, and with the conquest of the independent kingdom of Burma by the British in 1884 they were all rather hard-up. Anyway, June Rose had the normal upbringing of a wealthy Anglo-Burmese upper-class girl - meaning she was well educated, mercenary, and not too concerned with traditional ideas of morality. She became a fixture of Rangoon high society, much sought after by wealthy young Brits. In other words, a courtesan. She attracted the attention of a young Burmese named Shu Maung, who declared his love for her, but she spuned him, for he was both Burmese and poor.

Years passed, and Shu Maung prospered. He joined the national liberatoin struggle, rose to command the army of the independent nation of Burma, and in 1962 overthrew the elected government and became president for life. By now he called himself Ne Win, "Brilliant Sun," whichm, flowery as it may sound to Western ears, is pretty standard for Burmese names. June Rose, on the other hand, though presperous enough, was starting to hear Time's winged chariot. She met up again with Ne Win. Did he still love her? Yes, he did. They married. She was now Mrs Ne Win, wife of the man who might, in other circumstances, be called the King of Burma. A fitting finale for the daughter of kings - the thought must also have been in the mind of Ne Win, who was also up on Burmese history.

So all was sweetness and light. But little things began to put cracks in their happiness - in Ne Win's happiness, at least. June Rose wasn't quite Burmese enough, and didn't behave as a good (or sensible) Burmese wife should. She had a mind of her own, and insisted on displaying its contents in public. Ne Win didn't like that, but said nothing. On a State visit to China, she actually spoke to Chou En-lai before Chou spoke to her - the shame! Still Ne Win said nothing. June Rose was oblivious, prattling on, enjoying the houses, the cars, the deference, the jewels. One evening June Rose was chatting away as usual, to a Japanese friend of Ne Win's from his days working for the Japanese during the freedom struggle days - this scene took place in the privacy of Ne Win's home, out of the eyes of a curious public, for Ne Win was conscious of what can and cannot be done in public. Suddenly, without warning, Ne Win's patience snapped. With an oath (love this language!) he flung a glass ashtray at June Rose, then threw himself on her and started to strangle her. He was pulled off by a servant, while Suzuki fled. (Suzuki is the ultimate source of this incident - he told a colleague from the Japanese Embassy at the airport next morning, on his way out of the country).

June Rose, pausing only to run upstauirs and snatch up a selection of her jewelry, fled to the nearby villa of a friend. The friend put her on a plane out of the country. She ended up in Rome, nursing a broken jaw, sipping soup through a straw. She had a problem - no money. Diamonds and rubies are not easily turned into cold cash. What to do? She wrote her memoirs. Then she sent them to the Burmese Embassy: Perhaps Ne Win might like to correct her spelling? Ne Win arrived on the next plane. They met; an agreement was reached; no memoirs would be published, the jewels would be returned (they were State property anyway, accoutrements of the office of the First Lady), and June Rose would have a stipend.

And so all ended happily after all. Ne Win remarried, to a lady of mipeccable Burmese ancestry who knew how to comport herself on State occassions (and who got to wear the State jewelry), and June Rose settled down in Rome, finacially secure, but still, apparently from temperament rather than need, leading the life of, and I quote, "a grande horizontale". (Who am I quoting? That's for me to know).

So there's the story. I won't be aty all surprised if both June Rose's name, and this little tale, are deleted on the grounds of possibly impugning the names of living persons - there are no published sources on June Rose. (There are written sources, and quite reliable, but not published ones). Sort of a pity - Ne Win is dead, so is June Rose (or if she's not she's remarkably long-lived). PiCo 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)