|Concubinage has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
- 1 Concubine Housing
- 2 Eh?
- 3 pilegesh
- 4 Loan word?
- 5 Reservations regarding article content
- 6 Common Law
- 7 Article name
- 8 Why was this re-directed from Living Together?
- 9 Heterosexual vs. homosexual cohabitation
- 10 Total Misunderstanding of Term
- 11 Further to "Total Misunderstanding of Term"
- 12 Concubinage rules
- 13 Solomon fact
- 14 Can men be concubines to women?
- 15 Concubinus
- 16 A Chinese Emperor with his concubines inspecting his fantasy fishing fleet
- 17 Voluntary / Forced
- 18 odd, nothing about Christian (particularly Roman Catholic) concubines
- 19 Islamic Theology
- 20 Copy editing
- 21 Fixing Paul Sources
- 22 Copy Editing: "China" section
Although the nature of a concubine relationship is defined, the nature of sex within that relationship is not explicitly stated. Shouldn't that be more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think pilegesh should be merged into concubinage(as someone has proposed on pilegesh page) pilegesh is a a term primarily used in the context of Judaism and Jewish law and thus should have a separate article like mutah (a Muslim form of a pilegesh like relationship)has. 18.104.22.168 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Reservations regarding article contentEdit
I have some serious reservations about this entry as it stands.
1) AFAIK, in many societies that practiced concubinage, it was a specific legal status and concubines had specific rights, though not equal to those of a spouse.
Added the reference starting with "In ancient times..." to the first section. Prof Philip Daileader mentions this in his series of lecture on the Early Middle Ages, produced by The Teaching Company. I have been unable to find a print source for the same material.
Removed reference to common law marriage. A common law marriage is a marriage.
- I agree, and I believe the reference to a California case should be removed, as it is about Mexican common-law marriage which is called 'concubina'. The referenced article even says: "Vargas contends concubinage is equivalent to a Mexican common law marriage...". --Bobbozzo (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "Concubinage" the best name for this article? It makes the writing and reading awkward and obscures the meaning. Wouldn't it be more correct to name the article "Concubine" and re-write the article for that reference? —Frecklefoot 16:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why was this re-directed from Living Together?Edit
I think this category has a very judgmental sound to it. Concubinage implies slavery and many couples who live together outside of marriage do so with mutual consent. To lump all cohabiting couples with sexual slaves is unfair, and it shows a bias towards marriage.
Quite - the article, or at least the initial (sophomoric) sections - should be deleted in toto as they cannot be salvaged. The main problem is not the judgmental tone, but the fact that it talks about entirely different types of relationships. WikiFlier 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Heterosexual vs. homosexual cohabitationEdit
The article includes the following:
- Several US states legislatively forbid cohabitation between heterosexual partners. The law is not typically enforced, but various public agencies are said to discriminate against their employees using such laws. Some civil rights activists believe that such use of the law is unconstitutional, and provides homosexuals with rights denied to heterosexuals.
That passage is in need of some serious verification. First, can anyone name states that outlaw heterosexual cohabitation but have no laws that would extend to homosexual cohabitation? For obvious reasons, states that had sodomy laws up until Lawrence v. Texas don't count. Second, if "some civil rights activists" genuinely believe such a thing, then names, direct quotations, and primary sources are in order. Otherwise, the reference to "some civil rights activists" is just so many weasel words. Doctor Whom 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, this passage misrepresents the laws. Some anti-homosexual groups use this argument in relation to protected domestic partnerships. Pretty sure that Georgia has some laws controlling welfare benifits that disallow co-habitation. More often enforced against heterosexual co-habitation. But it has been used against homosexual co-habitation, too. Will check sources for clarification. --FloNight 09:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Total Misunderstanding of TermEdit
For all the sophomoric outrage at unequal relationships, male superiority etc., the term concubine does NOT simply mean "living together without obligation".
Rather, a concubine is a lower grade quasi-wife and as such entitled to a certain level of economic support. Similarly, her children have a defined status as children of the father. Where there are no "legitimate" heirs, the child of a concubine may inherit the father's position and estate.
A concubine remains exclusively attached to her man for life, or at least for a long period of time. The term "concubine" also implies the existence of a higher class wife.
The term concubina is well defined, for example, in Mexican law. See for example this decision by a California court dealing with the concept of concubina under Mexican law.
In Japan, the most famous emperor of recent times, the Meiji emperor, was the son of a concubine. He was groomed for the succession because other potential heirs were deemed unsuitable.
To sum up, a concubine is far more than a partner in a casual relationship. The difference is precisely that she does have - limited - rights as a minor spouse. She may even have gone through a form of "wedding" with the "husband". WikiFlier 09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Further to "Total Misunderstanding of Term"Edit
This is linked to "Concubinato" in Spanish; and I believe these are false cognates. Concubinato is more akin to "Domestic Partnership." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Al Nissaa 3, The Quran mentions that you may marry one wife or live with a concubine ما ملكت أيمانكم. I need your help with details about this relationship and its rules and borderlines.
I've removed the reference to Hinduism and Buddhism as they clearly don't follow the Christian Bible. If you can find a reference to concubines in the sutras feel free to re add.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Can men be concubines to women?Edit
Is there anywhere in history they have been? I've heard somewhere in Africa women are regarded as superior and the men take their last names rather than the other way around. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of current practices or the extent of the practice in ancient history, but I think there is scholarly study on the role of the "concubinus". There was information on this in the article, but it was removed without explanation. I have re-added it, and hope that, if it's removed again, it will at least be explained. See this link for a translation of Catallus and notes on it, which refer to the slave "boyfriend" a young lord kept, while engaged. I am not a scholar, so I cannot say definitely what the role of concubini is or was, but I believe there have been periods in history where the taking of an official male lover (or lovers) was not condemned in certain cultures. See pederasty for an indication of this, especially the Romans section. As this article is (or should be?) on concubinage in general, I do not see why concubini should be excluded, unless there is evidence to support that it was not true concubinage. Maedin\talk 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A Chinese Emperor with his concubines inspecting his fantasy fishing fleetEdit
Could someone replace this misleading image with something else please? The couple were not even East Asians at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that the actual name of the painting, or just a description? If the former, then presumably it should be capitalized and italicised, e.g. as "A Chinese Emperor With His Concubines Inspecting His Fantasy Fishing Fleet, by Jacques Vigouroux Duplessis". If the latter, then I can only see one concubine (and indeed, how do we know it's a concubine and not a wife etc). Plus, what does it mean by a "fantasy fishing fleet"? Wardog (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Voluntary / ForcedEdit
This article makes it sound like concubinage is voluntary. There is the statement: "concubinage was frequently voluntary." That statement implies that sometimes concubinage was not voluntary; forced concubinage would involve repeated rape and should be discussed. It's also questionable how voluntary the "voluntary" concubinage really was.
The article states: "legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah." How can a wife give a maid to a husband? What is going on there should be made explicit. It sounds like the husband and wife had a slave or semi-slave maid who was regarded as property. As the wife was barren, the wife tolerated the husband repeatedly raping the slave maid.
odd, nothing about Christian (particularly Roman Catholic) concubinesEdit
There was a long tradition, going almost up to the modern era, of Roman Catholic priests having concubines, particularly in small towns. Not often admitted, but pervasive nonetheless. We hear a great deal about Jewish and Islamic here, but not a word about Roman Catholic . . .! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)captcrisis
This part is interesting with some valuable information, but does not meet the Neutral Point of View standards of Wikipedia, especially in such phrases as [This is how Islam set an example of equating a slave to free human where standards of justice demanded.], which come across as a lecture from a teacher to pupils. It immediately puts the question, "says who?" Please could this be edited to make this particular part of the article more neutral? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It refers to chapter 4, verse iii "But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses." i.e. it says to MARRY the slave (what your right hand possesses), doesn't it? Not to keep her as a concubine...The flow of this seems to be quite a bit of original research/opinion. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of neutralizing the section a little bit by removing the following statements, all of which lacked any references:
-"The ancient Greek, Roman and pre-Islamic Arab cultures were subjugated with inhuman traditions, taboos and rules of misusing slave woman by raping, selling, sharing etc." True, but comparing Islam with noncontemporary ancient cultures is not the focus of the section.
-"It was a reforming measure for penetrating essential change that Arab culture required then." This is just a poorly worded sentence whose point was restated more eloquently in the very next sentence anyway by, "Awarding to concubines (slave women) status equivalent to wives and fatherhood to their children was in fact a revolution in the society for considering slaves equivalent to elites."
-"Islam thus taught mankind to treat human as human instead of throw-able commodity." -"Muhammad hence set an example of equality." -"That is how Islam discouraged unjust attitudes, taboos and customs against slaves and concubines." -"In fact today's world has reached and adopted such pro-human standards because of the centuries long efforts of Islam that consistently discouraged concubinage through enforcing standards to treat slaves equivalent to elites and manumit them as possible."
Removed the above non-neutral point of view statements. Statements of personal opinion have no place in Wikipedia. A more acceptable and neutral way of conveying these ideas would be to cite well-respected scholars on Islam who have made similar analyses of the Quran and of the historical influence of Islam. Otherwise, leave the analysis to the reader. The nobility of Muhammad in his fair treatement of his concubines speaks for itself.
This section still has neutrality problems, it's clearly written from a pro-Islam POV and needs to be balanced. Those women taken into sex slavery historically (and currently) would doubtless struggle to recognise the rosy view presented here. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. This section discusses the Islamic jurisprudence concerning concubinage, and not the experiences of concubines in the Islamic world. The jurisprudential discussion seems neutral to me – though I speak without expert knowledge. This section is similar to the "In Judaism" section which, as of yet, has attracted no dispute of its neutrality. Rcrptmncr (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I just went about reorganizing the article to put like items together. To me it seems obvious that the situation under slavery in the United States goes under the Christianity section, even though in no uncertain terms nearly every modern Christian would disavow such practices. It stands to reason likewise that Islamic State practices go under Islam, even if good Muslims repudiate the group as unrepresentative of their religion in every way. This is an overall taxonomy of religion we are using to organize this material, not a key for identifying particular species. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- -Islam gives men and women equality. According to some scholar concubine are allowed if the man take permission from his wife. If the wife did or the girl whom the man want to take as concubine do not agree then the man can not take her as concubine. On the other hand many influencial scholar of islam like Muhammad Asad disagree with it according to those scholar Islam did not give permission to Premarital sex. According to them if someone one to have relation whom they right hand posses then they have to marry them first. For more information check this article. http://therationaliser.blogspot.com/2013/07/does-quran-permit-sex-with-slaves.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Fixing Paul SourcesEdit
Copy Editing: "China" sectionEdit
I tagged the "China" section of this article, specifically the paragraph that begins with "A display of concubinage...." It seems either to have been written by a non-native English speaker, or to be a rough translation. If I get some free time, I might take a stab at it if no one else has by then. Also, the paragraphs needs citations. Matuko 17:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- "A display of concubinage is in" could be worded better. The word excellent needs to be changed to something but what? Roll back what I did on the article if you think it's worse. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)