Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Both Authentic and Amusing: The World's Oldest Condom"

Expand Messages
  • gedney@OPTONLINE.NET
    ... alas... 1640 is a bit out of period... Still it s a remarkable survival. But, I believe that there are Roman texts that describe the use of sheeps
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 25, 2006
      > Part of the story reads: "The reusable condom dates back to 1640
      > and
      > is completely intact, as is its orginal users' manual, written
      > in
      > Latin."
      >
      > It's pleasant to have documentation that safe sex is "period",
      > is it
      > not?

      alas...
      1640 is a bit out of period...
      Still it's a remarkable survival.

      But, I believe that there are Roman texts that describe the use of
      sheeps intestines for the purpose (as it still is,there is even a
      commercial brand that uses this as a material).
      But don't quote me... I cant give you references.

      Capt Elias

      (please,
      lets not get into that business about period ending at 1650
      a - it's not in SCA's governing documents, whereas 1600 is
      b - It's a date of convenience that is used to justify some fancy
      garb, and not based on any other rules.
      c - It's based on an erroneous reading of documentation standards:
      to wit: if it is written in a book by 1650, it is reasonable to expect
      that it or soemthing similar may have existed pre 1600

      Ah, what's the use!
      Someone's got to beat the expired equine, and having spent a good
      deal of time at Pennsic dealing with this very issue in regard to
      carribean piracy, It might as well be me)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Giudo di Niccolo Brunelleschi
      ... And you forgot D: 1600-1650 is the grey area that the College of Arms will accept _name_ documentation from...as long as the documentation is for
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 25, 2006
        Capt Elias:
        > a - it's not in SCA's governing documents, whereas 1600 is
        > b - It's a date of convenience that is used to justify some fancy
        > garb, and not based on any other rules.
        > c - It's based on an erroneous reading of documentation standards:
        > to wit: if it is written in a book by 1650, it is reasonable to expect
        > that it or soemthing similar may have existed pre 1600

        And you forgot D:
        1600-1650 is the grey area that the College of Arms will accept _name_
        documentation from...as long as the documentation is for _marriage- or
        _death_ records only...as someone that was married in 1612 or died in
        1643 may quite possibly have been alive prior to the 1600 cutoff date.

        It's this option D that developed the "grey area" that everyone has
        assumed to mean that the SCA cutoff date is 1650. It's _never_ been
        1650.

        Giudo di Niccolo
        (just another herald)
      • Aliskye
        ... Begging to differ (but not start an argument) I offer this: http://history.westkingdom.org/Year1/Fliers/TwelfthNight.jpg
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 28, 2006
          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Giudo di Niccolo Brunelleschi"
          <giudo.brunelleschi@...> wrote:
          >

          > It's this option D that developed the "grey area" that everyone has
          > assumed to mean that the SCA cutoff date is 1650. It's _never_ been
          > 1650.
          >
          > Giudo di Niccolo
          > (just another herald)

          Begging to differ (but not start an argument) I offer this:

          http://history.westkingdom.org/Year1/Fliers/TwelfthNight.jpg
          http://history.westkingdom.org/Year1/Fliers/Beltane.jpg


          regards,

          aliskye
          lyondemere, caid
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.