THE AGE OF THE LOVED BOY IN THE ARAB-ISLAMIC WORLD, 1500-1800

Mike   Thursday, 25 July 2019

I'm a bit critical here of the extensive use of integer chronological age in what I assume to be an attempt to define pederasty. Let me suggest that you look for ways to break away from that supposed restriction, even while applauding what you've already done along those lines by providing examples of art, and first-person historical accounts. I believe falling back into trying to view the situation in terms of chronological age is a modernism that doesn't serve your larger purpose.

In that historical and cultural context (devoid of formal birth certificates and intense government regulation of life based on chronological age) people's status was defined much more on individual traits, tastes, and talents. I would contend this respect for human diversity and individuality is a better approach to understanding all aspects of humanity than chronological (even in our own era). Not all readers may realize that growth milestones like puberty can vary greatly among individuals, as well as in different historical and cultural contexts (due to diet, stress, exposure and to modern human-created chemicals). Thus a reliance—even if not exclusive—on chronological age to describe or define human erotic situations will not only lend to misunderstanding, it also reinforces as "standard" a modernist view of humanity that deserves no special status.

For example, eunuchs were not uncommon in that era and culture. Some eunuchism occurred naturally, and some through surgeries and accidents. The surgeries were sometimes done to increase erotic desirability. And they were a regular part of that culture and can't be dismissed as "freaks" or "exceptions." A reliance on chronological age to define the optimal desirability for an Islamic pederast makes the whole phenomena of eunuchs unexplainable: why take the risks of such a procedure if age is the primary component of desire, and not other, more tangible human attributes? This is only one extreme example where a reliance on age obscures—rather than enlightens—the reader on what constitutes the object of pederastic desire.

* * *

Editor   Monday, 29 July 2019

Thanks for the very interesting comment. I agree quite strongly with almost everything you write. I don't wish to encourage anyone "to view the situation in terms of chronological age", but I do think the apparent age of the boy is one consideration that helps us to understand what pederasty was about, and that is why El-Rouayheb and others wise in these matters have devoted a little space to it.

As it happens, I am currently working on an extensive essay, "On the distinct character of Greek love", which will present my current understanding based on the writings so far on this website and certainly includes your points. I'll send you a draft when it is nearer finished and will gladly take on board any further thoughts you have about it.

I'm not sure if I've understood your point about eunuchs. I thought that when boys were castrated for pederastic purposes, it was in order to prolong the period in which they would be attractive (which, as El-Rouayheb says, would otherwise end with the growth of the beard) rather than to increase erotic desirability at an age when boys were anyway found attractive. Unless you are simply pointing out that it was physical development rather than chronological age that mattered, with which I entirely agree.

* * *

Mike   Wednesday, 31 July 2019

Indeed Editor, that was my intent with the comment about eunuchs: the pederast wasn't attracted by chronological age, but rather by a more complex array of triggers of desire independent of age.

I would contend that one must be very, very careful about categorizations. Humanity is profoundly diverse, and we all have a unique set of triggers of desire (for lack of a better term). So when a statement is made about "lack of a beard" we might forget that most women are expected not to have a beard. Is the presence of a penis AND the lack of a beard the root of pederastic desire? Does a boy's effeminate or masculine bearing matter? Does his physical fitness or height matter? Can a boy's excessive height veto desire? Would a boy's "chubbiness" veto it? It isn't one or two triggers that cause desire, but dozens, if not hundreds, both positive and negative. And not just physical attributes, but social positions: questions as to the extent that relative social power plays in pederastic desire are also very interesting—just as they are in adult heterosexual relationships. Each "pederast" (and human) is unique: he (or she?) has a unique set of erotic triggers and "no-goes." So, in a very real sense there isn't "pederasty" but a whole spectrum of "pederasties" that—when cavalierly lumped together—can often result in confusion, obscuring, and even facilitate various bigotries. For example, I have recently heard commentators employed by America's usually prestigious PBS (or possibly NPR) refer to Jeffery Epstein as a "pedophile," which I find profoundly confusing, obscuring, and facilitating bigotry.

* * *

Mike   Wednesday, 31 July 2019

Here's another example of how chronological age distorts our perceptions: a short, mild-mannered, soft-spoken priest gives oral sex to a tall, self-confident, athletic, guy. If the priest is 26-years-old, and the guy 15 everyone in the modern west today would call that pederasty, if not pedophilia. However a typical 1600s Arab would think that conclusion to be just ridiculous. Who is 'correct'? There's no way to tell if we are even posing the question in a useful way: one that leads us to a better understanding. We just don't have appropriate tools to understand these issues objectively.

The modern West has made remarkable strides in physics, chemistry, engineering, electronics, but as far as the human sciences go, the "modern" West is still in their dark ages. Our understanding of human relationships and eroticism is still mired in religious prejudices and bigotries. The USA particularly is loath to apply even Darwinism to the understanding of human nature—outside a few academics who are under constant scrutiny and intense objections from most of the general population.