Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800 (Part I)

Story Summary:

Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800 studies how homosexual behavior was perceived and received in the time and place outlined in the title; the author argues that the phrase “homosexual” and its current meaning did not exist during that time, and that “homosexual” behavior was instead broken down into separate actions and mannerisms that took on very different social contexts.

Reflections:

Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800 offers many notions of how women were viewed in society during that time and place. The most prominent, yet inexplicit depiction of women is very negative; by consistently comparing passive sodomites (who are looked down upon) to women, the text establishes that women were not valued highly. Throughout the text, women, being passive sexual partners, set the bar for how low a man can stoop.

Passive sodomites are often compared to women throughout the text, and neither group is depicted in a positive light. A quote on page 27 reads, “He who sees that his penis is transformed into a vagina, his fortitude and strength will become impotence, weakness, feebleness, and submissiveness.” Another page reads, “A preference for the passive-receptive role in sexual intercourse was seen as the very antithesis of masculinity.” (21) There are countless more examples throughout the text that offer similar ideas—that a passive sodomite, or an effeminate man, sinks to the level of a woman by giving up his masculinity and trading the role of penetrator in for that of the penetrated. The woman is described as “weak,” “feeble,” and “submissive”—something no man should encompass. On page 7, El-Rouayheb writes that people “tended to categorize and evaluate people according to whether they were active or passive in a sexual relation, and not according to the gender of their partners.” Because women are not able to be the “active” sexual party, they are regarded as slightly more valuable than worthless. Similarly, if a man decides to give up his role as the “active” fornicator, he is regarded in the same light. The difference here is a matter of choice; the woman never had the option to be evaluated as “active,” and so all women must have been devalued.

On page 22, El-Rouayheb explains that, “The passive male sodomite was seen as being in possession of a female sex drive, but without any of the constraints imposed on women in a patriarchal, gender-segregated society, and his image in bawdy-humorous works is similar to the image of promiscuous women” (22). This quote provides a direct comparison between passive sodomites and loose women—this portrays women as a whole in both a positive and negative light. On one hand, passive sodomites, who have committed what is described as “one of the most abominable sins a man could commit,” are placed on the exact same level as a promiscuous women (3). The woman, although impure, has only committed a minor crime in comparison to sodomy, and yet is placed on the same level as the male offender. This shows that a woman’s value was significantly low, and her actions were judged on a much harsher scale. On the other hand, women who were not “promiscuous” were regarded more highly than the passive sodomite, which shows that they have some value.

On page 16, however, a scholar noted that, “If carnal penetration of a boy were permitted, men would dispense with women’” (16). This suggests that even sodomites are valued more highly than women, and that women are essentially worthless outside of their ability to give birth. Another quote on page 25 reinforces the notion that women in this society were notably insignificant, when it reads, “Merely by virtue of his biological sex, a man was expected to participate in a world from which women were in principal excluded” (25). Time and time again, women are described as powerless, worthless, and weak. Femininity is the ultimate insult to a man; a passive sodomite is as offensive as a woman.

Words: 597