‘On one issue, at least, men and women
agree: they both distrust women.’
— H.L. Mencken
While polygamy was a common trend in ancient times, polyandry was accepted only by way of text. In the Indian epic Mahabharata, the five Pandava brothers shared a wife, Draupadi. Although there were a few references to polyandry, it was impossible for ordinary people of respectable class to even consider it for their daughters. The common man is so averse to the idea of polyandry that, despite Draupadi’s charismatic personality, her name is rarely heard of!
Women were unquestioningly seen as a responsibility of the men of the household. The true function of a woman was realised by way of marriage; she could validate her existence only by adorning the role of a wife and mother. Once married, she would establish a home, mostly under the guidance of her mother-in-law, provide pleasure to her husband, produce children, and cook food. Even when she lived under her parents’ roof, she was referred to as someone else’s property (parayaa dhan). The role of a woman in ancient times can be summed up in the following verse by Manu, the first King of Mankind, son of Surya, the Sun God, ‘She should do nothing independently, even in her own house. In childhood, subject to her father, in youth, to her husband, and when her husband is dead, to her sons, she should never enjoy independence.’
Since a woman was thought to be naturally libidinous—at least according to the land of the Kama Sutra—it was deemed safe to marry her off in her childhood. If she were to take a lover, she would bring disgrace to the family. The Victorian prudery, on the other hand, assumed that women had no sexual needs and they did not like sex in general; they were merely giving in to their husbands’ sexual needs.
According to Allan and Barbara Pease, ‘Victorian women were taught never to invite sexual advances or give in to fantasies and to live in quiet devotion to husband, family, and country.’1 They further add, ‘The popular advice to women of the day was to lie back, close your eyes and think of England.’2 This attitude was carried forward well up to the early 1960s.
The women of the past fell under three categories—the wife (chief queen in case of rulers), the mistress (harem), and the courtesan (concubine).
The role of the wife was to attend to her master (her husband) no matter how uncouth and prone to pleasure he may be. Everything else, including children, was secondary. A virtuous wife was the one for whom the commitment to obey and follow her husband in all things was of paramount importance. She was expected to worship not just her husband but also the very ground he walked on.
The wife was expected to be skilful in her domestic duties such as cooking and cleaning. To fulfil her duties as a worthy wife, she was taught different roles—to turn into a slave from a goddess or to a strumpet from a saint. Lastly, she was also taught to use her husband’s resources judiciously as she was the one who handled the money at home.
The wife, however, was reduced to rubble each time her Lord took fancy to a nymph. While the wife of a middle-class man could only wait for her husband to outgrow his fancy for another woman, the courtly drama, however, centred on the tantrum thrown by the chief queen towards her Lord’s latest object of affection. But these invariably ended on a happy note because the chief queen wielded her power over her young rivals.
Some of these women, who the king took a fancy to, were concubines and would oblige any courtier on whom the king would choose to bestow a favour. They were salaried and were not up to par with the regular inhabitants of the harem, which was exclusively for the king’s entertainment. These salaried courtesans would also accompany the king whenever he went to war.
The courtesans or prostitutes of ancient times were beautiful, accomplished, and wealthy women. Moreover, they were trained in various erotic techniques and had the knowledge of aphrodisiac recipes and charms along with other kinds of arts like singing and dancing. Some courtesans were so good that they were even considered to be treasured possession of the city; they were protected and supervised by the state.
Interestingly, prostitutes were the first taxpaying women. The superintendent of prostitutes, who was responsible for the care and supervision of the palace courtesans and inspection of brothels, would collect two-days’ earnings from each prostitute every month as tax to the government. The statecraft even recommended them to be enlisted in the secret services as men of doubtful characters usually congregated the prostitutes. It was a great practice as the spies got most of the information through them. However, according to some texts, the murder of a prostitute was not punishable by law.