Daryo Jan 20, 2013:

@ Tony M I see now I was looking at the wrong side of this couple. As this baron never is and avoids being a werewolf in her presence, the "danger" is purely psychological. So it's the wife fearing that she could become or see herself as sexually deviant. A bit like these women crazy about men when they are in prison, and loosing all interest in them once there are out.
Interesting how every little additional bit of information creates a totally different picture!

DLyons (asker) Jan 20, 2013:

I translated the sections as "we should ask precisely what, at a deeper level, motivates the wife’s fear. Does she fear that the wolf will eat, would kill her? Probably not. It is more likely that she fears the wolf will render her wanton, since wantonness, monstrosity, and bestiality are all words which have been used to designate sexual aberrancy."

Tony M Jan 20, 2013:

@ Daryo Surely it's the other way around?

The woman having sex with her husband would be a sexual aberration because he's a time-share animal.

Personally, it wouldn't worry me that much... a large tub of Veet and some cosmetic dentistry should do the trick nicely... :-))

Daryo Jan 20, 2013:

I must admit I'm now completely baffled. That a werewolf is labelled "... sauvagerie, monstruosité et bestialité" is perfectly understandable. But after reading the story, I can't see why that would be an "aberration sexuelle". Being a werewolf can fairly be described as "aberration" - no doubts about that. But I can't find anywhere in this story why it would be an "aberration sexuelle"? There no mention of this baron Bisclavret needing to turn into a werewolf to be able to have sex - that would be an "aberration sexuelle". If a women discovers that her husband is a hitmen, would that make being a hitmen a "sexual aberration"?
Or is it a similar case to Victorians seeing sexual elements in ordinary table legs?

liz askew Jan 19, 2013:

I suppose a warewolf would stoop to that sort of thing - cutting the wife's nose off!! Standard stuff for a warewolf perhaps. Cheers! Obviously needs anger management therapy:)

Rachel Fell Jan 19, 2013:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisclavret

Tony M Jan 19, 2013:

@ Daryo Quote: "Isn't there always some kind of grades/levels of "aberration"?"

Traditionally, not always!

Just look at the Old Testament fundamentalists, who would claim that eating shellfish, cutting your hair, 'casting your seed upon the ground', or 'lying with a man as your wife' are all equally serious 'abominations' in the eyes of the Lord...

So I think in the kind of context we are talking about, even in a modern document, we need to take it in the perspective of the period of the literary work in question.

Of course, with the added context, we now know that basically we are only really talking about one particular kind of depravity... or at least, not the whole gamut of possible ones.

DLyons (asker) Jan 19, 2013:

Thanks Liz. Yes, maybe I misclassified it - it was late and just I'd given up on trying to find it in Kraft-Ebbing. The original is from ~1160 and the word used there (if I'm interpreting it correctly) for what exactly the wife objects to is surprisingly graphic. One can certainly see her point of view but she ends up getting her nose bitten off (literally!)

liz askew Jan 19, 2013:

Glad you posted where this text was from, there was me thinking "I've never had a medical text like that!"..posting it under "Medical" made me think it was more scientific. I can sympathise with the werewolf's wife, FWIW. Cheers! There are limits folks:)

DLyons (asker) Jan 19, 2013:

The text is from a modern academic article about "Bisclavret" - a werewolf. In the lay, his wife betrays him since she doesn't want to sleep with someone who becomes an animal (even though she has never seen him in this state). I originally thought that these were distinct aberrations which she feared but, on reflection, I now agree with Tony.

Daryo Jan 19, 2013:

something doesn't add-up Whichever way you try to interpret the ST, something doesn't add-up.
"... sauvagerie, monstruosité et bestialité sont autant de noms pour désigner l'idée d'une aberration sexuelle".
this looks like a list of synonyms/adjectives related to "une aberration sexuelle". Without the rest of the text, it's not clear if it's about one specific "aberration sexuelle" - which could only be bestiality, but then "sauvagerie, monstruosité" are not synoyms for bestialité [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie].
Leaving aside the fact that what is "normal" varies hugely from one place/time to another, if "une aberration sexuelle" is about any "aberration sexuelle" using "sauvagerie, monstruosité et bestialité" to describe any possible one would sound a bit out of proportion, even for some hard-line puritan? Isn't there always some kind of grades/levels of " aberration"?

Rachel Fell Jan 19, 2013:

Think Tony's right - not a specific act - see http://tinyurl.com/amhfqpx

Tony M Jan 18, 2013:

You're talking to the right man here, D! Tried 'em all! ;-)

DLyons (asker) Jan 18, 2013:

Thanks Tony. I hadn't thought of it like that, but you may very well be right!

Obviously, sexual aberrations aren't my strong point, said he virtuously :-)

Tony M Jan 18, 2013:

Point of view? I think you're looking at this the wrong way round, D.

I believe they are not claiming that these are different types of sexual aberration, but rather, that all these are words used to describe (almost any kind of) sexual perversion.

These charming terms have all at one time or another been used torefer, in particualr, to homosexual behaviour — "the love that dare not speak its name".