Latin Women Throughout the Colonial

Latin Women

Throughout the colonial period, women in the major cities of Latin America experienced vast differences in their marital and sexual lives. In areas such as Mexico City and Buenos Aries, women dealt consistently with social and religious regulation of the intimate portions of their lives, transforming what was otherwise considered to be a personal decision of love into social and economic mechanisms for the binding of family interests and social norms (Lavrin 1989). Yet in other areas, these social institutions accepted different norms, resulting in slightly more freedom for the women of the area.

This paper will analyze the sexual and marital lives of women in four major Latin American cities between the 17th and 19th centuries. By analyzing and comparing the experiences of women in Mexico City, Bahia, Buenos Aries, and Lima, this paper will show that while there were certainly some differences in the intimate lives of the populations in these areas, there were more often vastly similar social norms and religious institutions which resulted in similar life experiences from one major city to another. Further, this paper will discuss these differences and similarities in terms of their effects on the sexual and marital lives of the women in colonial Latin America.

During the colonial period, Mexico City, Mexico, was a place of rapid change in terms of the views on the marital and sexual lives of women within the population. In the early 17th century, the Catholic Church, a large part of the social institution of the time period, supported two basic cultural attitudes with regard to marriage and sexuality (Seed 1988). The first of those attitudes was the will of both parties to consent to marriage. Since the Church saw marriage as a sacrament, and therefore saw it's self as the only power able to have jurisdiction over marriage, this requirement for the free will held fast, even in the face of parental disapproval (Seed 1988). These conditions meant males were not the only ones with control over their marriage, and also that women were allowed to choose their marriage partner, even in the face of disapproval.

In addition to the free will component to marriage, the social institutions of the early 17th century in Mexico City specifically discussed honor in terms of sexuality as having a vital role in the institution of marriage. The concept of honor is clear through the writings of the time, in that "honor" can be thought of as synonymous with "virtue" (Seed 1988). Women to be married were expected to be sexually inexperienced prior to marriage according to societal norms and were expected to be monogamous once married.

However, perhaps the most noted aspect of this virtuous requirement for women lay in the concept that virtue relied much more heavily in Mexico City on outward appearance than on true virtue. According to what reports are available from the time period, women in Mexico City had higher rates of out-of-wedlock births than even their European relations (Seed 1988). Yet the response of social institutions was not to humiliate or shame those whose virtue had been lost, but rather, to remedy the situation. If the loss of virtue was due to a loss of virginity that did not result in pregnancy, it was considered highly immoral to discuss this loss of virtue. If the impropriety did result in pregnancy, the response of the Church and family were to quickly, secretly, and quietly marry the couple (Seed 1988). Another option was to quickly hide the pregnancy altogether, by keeping the mother-to-be hidden from society whenever she began to show visible signs of her condition. The child was often then born as an "orphan," since the mother and father's names were left off the birth certificate (Arrom 1985). In all cases, the reputation of the woman was to be upheld, through whatever course was believed necessary (Seed 1988).

It is also important to note that the power of women to maintain their virtue overpowered the male's right to consent to marriage. According to records, if a man promised to marry a woman, and sexual relations occurred prior to marriage, the man was obliged to marry. If he did not, the males of the family, the crown, and the Church could imprison the male. If the male continued to refuse marriage, he was often moved to a work camp for an unlimited amount of time or required to pay reparations (Seed 1988). This clearly displays the power of a woman's honor in colonial Mexico City.

The idea that women were to be sexually active only in marriage can also be seen in the laws of Mexico City in the late 17th century. In respect to the protection for the marriage promise, the law noted that this protection was only offered to "decent" women, those seen to be honest wives or women, or virgins. Prostitutes were not offered the right to child support for out-of-wedlock birth, and the rape of a "vile" woman held no penalty. If a female were found to be an honest woman, but dressed as a "vile" woman, she was not able to sue a male who promised marriage, but did not marry. Only women who were virgins when single, monogamous when married, and chaste when widowed were allowed legal discourse (Seed 1988). Sexual crimes such as concubinage, incest, bigamy, and abortion were often harshly punished when the offender were female (Seed 1988). Further, prostitution was illegal, as was adultery, and both were punishable by a loss of dowry and shares of community property, or imprisonment. In drastic cases, the husband was allowed to kill the woman (Seed 1988).

While it is obvious that women were oppressed in relation to sexual activity, those who chose a path of virtue were often still oppressed in marriage. A woman was expected to show her husband total obedience, in return for his support. Upon marriage, women relinquished sovereignty over her property, any earnings, and all domestic activities, according to civil law. However, the Church did offer more rights to married women, in that both spouses were expected to support and care for children (Seed 1988).

There were areas, however, that a woman was allowed to exert her own free will, even in this time of restricted freedom. A woman could accept an unencumbered inheritance, for example, and that inheritance did not have to be equally divided between herself and her husband. The married woman could also control her own final will and testament, as well as owning half of all property purchased while married. The dowry was owned by the woman alone, although the husband controlled it, and any money or property left upon the husband's death or upon separation was equally divided between the widow and any remaining family members of the husband (Seed 1988).

Married women to some extent also lost their right to control the children under civil law. The father alone had the right to decide the child's educational path, controlled any property owned by the child, had legal power over their official transactions, and had control over punishment (Seed 1988). The woman also lost guardianship rights upon the death of her husband, unless he failed to name another guardian in his will (Seed 1988).

It is obvious that women in colonial Mexico City were not offered the same rights in relation to sexuality and marriage as men in this Catholic society. While the Church actually offered more protection and granted more rights than civil law, the Church did not have any power to enforce their concepts. Thus, colonial women were to be virgins until their wedding, and monogamous throughout their marriage. In return for this virtuous life, their rights to income, property, legal affairs, and most other daily tasks, including child rearing, were immediately given over to their husbands. While they retained their dowry and half of the community property, this was not accessible until the husband's death or separation. Those who chose a less virtuous life were often not even considered members of society, and were severely punished.

The sexual and marital life of women in Bahia, Brazil during colonial times was much like that of the women in Mexico City, but with some notable differences. Many of these differences related to the varied racial classes present in the area during the early seventeenth century. Both Indian women and Portuguese women were represented in Bahia, and these two races had vastly different views of sexual morality. The Portuguese women, much like their sisters in Mexico City, were raised to believe in a virtuous life, and were thought to be virtuous if they avoided sexual activity out of wedlock. On the other hand, the Indian women of the area were far less interested in virtue, and more interested in securing a future. Thus, their more adventurous sexual ways were attractions for early colonial men in Bahia (Schwartz 1973).

This difference in motive for virtue is in part due to the easier transition from one class system to the next in colonial Bahia. While Indian women and those of mixed races were certainly lower class citizens, they could easily become elite through their marriage to a white male of Spanish decent (Mabry 1990). Marriage was often seen to transcend any race or class issue, and thus prompted many women to act in non-virtuous ways in order to secure a future (Johnson 1998).

This difference in virtuous intent also relates to the very real danger for women in Bahia who committed acts considered to be sexually outlandish or improper, whether married or single. For married women, the punishment for adultery could include death until 1830. Prior to that time, men who killed their adulterous wives were often acquitted, since they were defending their honor in the eyes of the social system of the time (Caulfield 2000). Further, even single women found to be concubines could be killed by their families, to prevent a loss of the family honor (Johnson 1998). However, since many of these dangers related only to the women of Spanish decent, Indian women were not at risk for such violent repercussions.

In light of these serious punishments for a loss of honor, married Latin women of Bahia did not take a passive role in the defense of their honor. Rather than relying on the men of the community to defend their honor, women took a vested interest in their own and their families reputations. Women often acted together to protect their reputations through legal means, if they were higher-class citizens, or through the use of violence and deception. Elite women in Bahia often conspired to hide illegitimate children by placing them with married relatives or foster homes (Johnson 1998). Thus, while the strict rulings against sexuality in women certainly helped to stifle some, these regulations also created a contradiction in reality, since to be honorable, one often had to be deceitful (Johnson 1998).

The rights of elite women in Bahia marriages were also different. While they were expected to be "corrected" by their husbands, controlled few assets once married, and were allowed no legal proceedings, they were the petitioners in all divorce cases, showing a power for these women many lower class women did not have in other areas. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the reigning social institution at the time, women were the only persons allowed to bring "divorce" proceedings against their spouse. These "divorces" were simply separations, in which neither male nor female could remarry. Generally, these proceedings were requested in cases of abuse or mistreatment (Lavrin 1989).

Additionally, married women in colonial Bahia were entitled to half of the community property acquired during marriage, and had the power to control those assets. Dowries given to daughters often exceeded their male siblings' share of any family property, and those daughters still retained their rights to that family property. However, it is important to note that these dowries were not so much an expression of the life of the married woman, but were instead intended to attract a husband. Often, if a female were sexually active prior to marriage, the dowry actually increased to conceal or at least diminish the indiscretion (Nazzari 1991).

Another difference can be found in the way in which the male spouse was chosen for the female. In Mexico City, as discussed, the Church and other social institutions favored personal choice for the couple to be married. In Bahia, however, fathers often used the large dowries to entice suitors. Once a number of suitors showed interest, the father could then chose the best among them. Since females were a prime member of the productive family unit of Bahia in the 17th century, the maintenance of the status quo was a desired outcome. The Church rarely interfered with this practice, and arranged marriages were often the result (Nazzari 1991).

It is important to note that many of these sexual restrictions and lack of rights applied only to those in the elite status quo. Lower class or slave class women often fought against such restrictions on their sexual or marital activities. Since these families often had no dowry, their choice for spouses remained based on mutual attraction. Additionally, since there was no real honor to the slave class, slave women were not "expected" to remain virgins. Rather, these women often became concubines or lovers of their masters. In terms of free lower class women, they too often became servants to the elite males, and were often lovers (Hahner 1990).

It is clear that while there were some differences in the married and sexual lives of women in Bahia, Brazil during colonial times, they also shared many experiences with those in Mexico City. The elite classes were expected to be virtuous, the protection of a woman's honor was a primary factor in all daily life, women were often treated as the lesser class, and marriage often dealt more with the solidification of families than with emotion. However, because of the high level of mixed race sexual relations, there were some women who were removed from this highly restrictive lifestyle. Additionally, the elite women were allowed to control property, allowed to assist in their own "divorce" proceedings, and were less passive than their sisters in Mexico City.

In Buenos Aires, Argentina, women again experienced many of the same issues as those in Bahia and Mexico City. As in Mexico City, the Church held a high position of power, and through the late 17th century, continued to be the primary party in the approval of marriage. Once a declaration of marriage occurred, the couple's union could be objected to by family. Yet, as in Mexico City, the Church often sided with the couple, allowing marriages when objections were based on race or class issues (Lavrin 1989). This also meant that, similar to Bahia, women of lower social classes could marry outside of their economic situation, and thereby become more prominent members of society (Lavrin 1995).

Women in Buenos Aires often married early. Unlike in Bahia, where the female was a primary member of a productive family group even when single, the female in a family of Buenos Aires was often married as early as the age fourteen. It was not until the late 18th century that women were required to reach the age of 25 prior to marriage, or were required to have parental consent for marriage. It is important to note that even this step was not intended to allow the female any additional rights, but was instead instituted to allow more parental control over martial choice (Lavrin 1989).

As in Mexico City and Bahia, any female promised marriage by a male who did not follow through with the promise could sue the offender for breach of contract. This was again due to the high value placed on the reputation of the female in the daily life of Buenos Aires. However, it is important to note that there were some differences in the proceedings of these cases. In Buenos Aires in colonial times, issues of race were highly sensitive issues. Whereas in Bahia, members of the mulatto class were more or less accepted as part of society, the situation in Buenos Aires was far more delicate. Those found to be from mixed heritage often found themselves lowered in their class status, and those in the elite families were no longer treated as elite. Thus, while dissent cases were popular in Mexico City and while race issues were not as pressing in Bahia, cases before the courts for marriage dissent were not as common in Buenos Aires (Lavrin 1989).

As in other Latin areas during colonial times, the most frequent dissent against marriage was brought by the parents of the male, claiming a "non-virtuous" life of the female. As in Mexico City, the elite were often spared this humiliation, since their class and honor were to be highly guarded. However, for lower-class women in Buenos Aires, claims of highly active sexual lives, prostitution, venereal disease, and prior consensual unions and out of wedlock births were common (Lavrin 1989). Since lower class females did not have the resources to combat these charges, and since the legal and political system of Buenos Aires in colonial times did not protect the honor of the lower class, these women were often left with no hope of marrying outside their economic or social stations.

However, unlike in Mexico City, where the female was expected to remain a virgin until the actual marriage ceremony, those in Buenos Aires made clear distinction between sexual relations with the betrothed, and other relations. Certainly, honor was a highly valued trait for women, and a mainstay of their social standing. Yet sexual relations between those intending to marry were a common practice in Buenos Aires, even in the elite classes. This created a problem in cases where the male breached the marriage contract. If a female were to have sexual relations with the male, and the male were to breach the contract, the female was seen to be less honorable than if she had sexual relations prior to marriage, but still married. The end result was often not only a loss of honor and virginity, but also a resulting loss of social status. Since it was assumed that women who were engaged were involved in sexual relationships with their intended partner, it was also assumed that these women lost their honor, were "tarnished," and "inferior," regardless of whether sexual relations had even actually occurred (Lavrin 1989). Whereas in Mexico City, women's honor was defended outside of the court system, the only recourse for women in Buenos Aires was the civil litigation system. This often meant that honor was never restored.

The treatment of women found to have sexual relations with males other than their marriage partner or fiancee, however, was similar to that of the females in Bahia. No clear line was drawn between women having sexual relations out of wedlock and common prostitutes. In both cases, the women were seen as being inferior and corrupt. Marriage was often not an option for those found to have prior sexual relations, since parents could object to a marriage based solely on the prior sexual history of the female (Lavrin 1989).

This discrimination against sexually active women in Buenos Aires resulted in a high number of illegitimate children, as it did in other Latin areas during colonial times. However, in Buenos Aires, there were benefits for women who gave up heir out of wedlock, or mixed race children. First, as in Mexico City and Bahia, any female who retained parental rights to their illegitimate children were seen as even lower class than prostitutes. Again, because honor was such a highly valued trait, and since the display of a child born out of wedlock and against social norms was considered to be counter to the valued ideal of feminine modesty, these women were often social outcasts (Lavrin 1989). Thus, women who gave up their illegitimate children, especially if it were done with utmost secrecy, were allowed to retain their honor and social class.

The second benefit to women in giving up rights to these children shows another difference in the structure of the class system in Buenos Aires, compared to that of areas such as Mexico City. In Buenos Aires, abandoned children who were white were granted the same legal status as legitimate white children. This rule covered even those children born years earlier. Additionally, children born and abandoned that appeared to be Spanish in decent were considered as such, and were registered as Spanish (Lavrin 1989). In an area so against mulatto children, this benefit allowed women giving birth to mixed race children to abandon them, and actually improve the social status of the child.

The rights of these unmarried women in Buenos Aires varied by class, but were similar to those in Mexico City and Bahia, although slightly more restrictive. Single elite women were not to be seen in the street without a servant, nor to be left alone, even while in their own homes. Elite women did not appear in court but rather had judges and scribes come to their homes in order to ensure that their honor was continuously upheld (Lavrin 1989). Conversely, lower class women whose economic conditions made these ideals impossible often took a much stronger role. Unlike in Mexico City and even Bahia, many women operated saloons, and sold meat, bread, pies, and other foods on public squares. Often these women, who by definition did not worry about honor, were able to keep much of their profits and often assisted the men in business dealings (Lavrin 1989).

It was perhaps the middle elite group of females whose lives in relation to sex and marriage were the most difficult. Even these legitimate women, brought up to contain their sexual identities and refrain from any behaviors which would create suspicion, and protected as were their elite counterparts, found it difficult to marry. Since economic and social class separations were so distinct in Buenos Aires, these women did not have the social status to marry into a higher status, even though their virtue was without question. However, marrying into a lower class was unthinkable, since this would blemish her honor, affecting her family and future generations (Lavrin 1989). Thus, while these women maintained all virtue, their married lives would still not improve their social condition.

Clearly, women in Buenos Aires had some different experiences in marriage and in sexuality than women in Mexico City and Bahia, but overall, many aspects were shared among these Latin cultures. While women in Buenos Aires may have had some rights to property and monetary values, their rights as individuals were severely restricted, particularly in the elite class. Unable to readily move among social classes by marriage, the women of Buenos Aires differed in that their sexual lives often decided their marital positions, and thus, the social position of her entire family.

The lives of women in colonial Lima, Peru, were much like those in Bahia, for many of the same reasons. In particular, the ethnic spectrum in Lima was varied, involving women of Spanish, African, Indian, Metizo, and other decent. As in Bahia and Buenos Aires, women of mixed decent were often the lower class citizens, but this had its own set of advantageous. While these women, as in other areas, had few legal protections, they were able to work in positions such as street vendors and seamstresses and were generally able to control their own profits (Lavrin 1989).

Unlike in areas such as Mexico City, marriages in Lima were often arranged rather than agreed upon by two parties. Analysis of divorce proceedings in the colonial eras show that, in areas such as Bahia, mistreatment was often the reason for divorce, there is rarely a mention of invalid marriages. However, in Lima, forced or ecclesiastically invalid marriages were the reasons most often given for requested separations. Additional reasons included inequality of conditions and deceit. In areas such as Bahia, if invalid marriage was the true reason for the request, the societal structure was such that other more acceptable reasons were often given. However, in Lima this was not the case (Lavrin 1989).