Sodomy, or fornication against nature, was until the late 19th century considered a wide category of forbidden and sinful sexual acts. In theory this category could include most sexual acts apart from reproductive sexuality between a man and a woman. In this respect it could also encompass sexual acts between men and women which deviated from this, and also sexuality between women.
In Europe it was nonetheless rare that relationships between women were included in the laws against sodomy, though it was included in the text of the sodomy ban in one of the most influential law texts of the time, the Penal Code sodomy the Germanic-Roman Empire fromConstitutio Criminalis Carolina.
L from punished "fornication against nature" with "fire and flames". The definition of the crime was unclear, but the common interpretation was that it included certain forms of sexuality between men and between humans and animals crimen bestialitatis, or bestiality.
Sodomy between persons of male same sex was investigated a few times during the time paragraph 15 was in effect untilbut no one was convicted on these charges. The question of sexuality between women, on the other hand, was not raised until the s. However, in and a couple of cases regarding this went all the way to The Supreme Court of Norway.
In Norway, the most specific requirement of sodomy or acts against nature was penetration: Between men, a complete transgression of the law was defined as anal penetration "res in re" with emptying of semen "effusio semini".
Sodomy - Wikipedia
One should therefore assume that sexuality nude pregnant cheerleader gif women was not in fact defined sodomy sodomy. However, it was not that simple. There are few sources that mention sexuality between women before the end of the s. Court sources mention one case sodomy Kinsarvik in Hardanger in where a "Schammelig vise", or defamatory ditty, was written about male young women in the village who according to rumours would engage in illicit acts.
The case about the ditty came up before the village council "bygdetinget"and the relationship between the two women was to be further investigated at the next council meeting. Another case which was revealed in the s concerned itself with what was women a "peculiar marriage between two women". The case was described as a "despicable phenomenon against nature", a language usage which is connected to the text of the law, women against nature". Despite this, it is not known whether the sodomy ban was considered enforced in this case.
Jens Andersson successfully fled from captivity, and the case was never tried at court. Stoa In the very first sodomy case about sexual acts between two persons of the same sex, men or women, was brought up in the Norwegian Supreme Court. It is interesting, but not completely arbitrary that this was a case about sex between women: The flat hairless teen anal was that it was unclear in the text of law whether or not the sodomy ban also included relations between women.
The accused were 68 year old Most hottest pornstar naked Vold from Helgeland and two of her maids Aarsetp. The court also found it proven that Vold had used an artificial male limb. A doctor had examined the main suspect to see if male might have an unusually large clitoris, which according to the doctor had in some cases been used for mutual satisfaction of sexual urges between women, but this was disproven.
The three women had in lower instances of court been found guilty of trying to commit acts against nature, as written in paragraphs in the new Penal Code of This paragraph set the punishment for sodomy to hard labour, which was a considerably milder punishment than the one in the previous law from As the acts between Simonette male the two other sodomy had happened before this new law had gone into effect, however, the Supreme Court still considered that male should be tried according to the old law.
One of the judges, Claus Winter Hjelm, sodomy the Penal Code to include a wide specter of different unnatural acts and behaviours, and was less concerned with the demand for completed penetration.
Hence Hjelm dismissed the thought that sodomy should be limited to only certain sexual acts involving penetration. Judge Ulrik Women, on the other hand, argued that it could not have been the sodomy intention that such acts were to be affected by the ban.
Despite this, Motzfeld thought that the actions that had led to such scandal should have consequences. Anette Halvorsen Aarset, who has analysed male sentence, points out that the case is hard to interpret, but thinks the Supreme Court concluded according to Motzfeldts reasoning that the women could not be sentenced directly according to N.
Simonette Vold was sentenced to one year in a house of correction while the other two had to serve 15 days in prison, subsisting on water and bread. In a new case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Aarset In the Kristiania court one of the women was sentenced to 15 days in prison, subsisting on bread and water. Despite the court stating that paragraph of the Penal Code of did not cover this kind of relations, the ruling referred to the Supreme Court verdict from where the three women were sentenced.
Back Door Psychology | Psychology Today
However, when this case was brought to the Supreme Court, the majority of judges this time women for acquittal, as they considered the case to not fall under the jurisdiction of paragraphs of the Penal Code, and that the text of porno shots of pussy should be strictly abided by.
Fucking princess daisy porn, who has analysed this verdict as well, considers that the Supreme Court now seem to have stayed closer to the principle of not sentencing without strict referral women the text of law, women opposed to the verdict from Aarsets.
The Supreme Court therefore declared that the verdict from should not create precedence for later cases. Firstly the old law from was no longer valid, as it been replaced by the Penal Code of Secondly the verdict from clearly stated that relations between women were not included in the ban. The verdict most likely then set a precedence excluding relations between women from being tried according to paragraphs Further trials or cases concerning sodomy between women in Norway in the s are therefore unlikely, but so far unexplored.
The two verdicts from and show that the question of sexuality between women was discussed. The idea of sexual relations between women was therefore not unheard of. Sexual relations between women was therefore explicitly excluded.
Attorney General Walter Scott Dahl stated that this was only natural, sodomy it was a long time since such cases had been brought to court. Hence this kind of touching between women should also be included. The statement from Anton Qvam about sexuality between women being impossible should probably not be interpreted literally: Looft Towards the end of the 19th century there was a gradual move towards looking at the sexual urges rather than the specific actions.
Until the mids the medical examination in sodomy cases, for example, was a hunt for specific evidence of the actions that had taken place. Towards the end of the century a new male of doctor appeared; the psychiatrists.
These were brought in to explain the motives behind the actions, and the psychological background of the involved. Despite the fact that homosexuality between men was considered, for various reasons, the most important to prosecute, lesbian sexuality became a problematised theme as the 20th century progressed.
There may be more cases about sodomy between women in Norway, particularly in the s. A more comprehensive study of sodomy cases is necessary to show the real extent. The two cases that were brought to the Supreme Court in and have been studied by Anette Halvorsen Aarset. A closer study of these cases, involving multiple sources, such as the verdicts and sentences from the lower courts, would probably provide rich materials for studying the understanding of sexuality between women in Norway in the s.
Holm, Harald. Bergensposten 7, 2: Looft, Carl. Medicinsk revue Stoa, Nils Johan. Fortellinger om synd og straff.