To get back to my inspiration for my paper, as rough of an idea as it is, I want to look into how women would trick men, be it disguising themselves as men and all of the benefits this provided or adultery. The obvious reason for dressing as a man would be to put oneself on an even playing field with other men – no more sexual discrimination. But Irwin talks about this disguise in relation to male homosexuality. The Arab women were having to compete with young boys for the affection of their husbands, which is a popular motivation for dressing as a man/boy. Irwin mentions Ali al-Baghdadi’s The Book of the Delicate Flowers Regarding the Kiss and the Embrace, which I think would have a lot of information for the type of topic I am interested in. There is also the ever prevalent topic of adultery, which Irwin says was simply a “plot mover” (161). While this may be true and makes sense, it is also an example of female power, which ties in with the womens’ decisions to disguise themselves as males.

One of the most memorable parts of this chapter is when Irwin mentions that the superstitious of the day would be wary for a male to sit in the same place a woman had recently been sitting in for fear that some sort of “illicit sexual pleasure might be derived therefrom” (167). The idea that the behind was a super-sexual part of the body is not a foreign or archaic concept, but this seems to be an ancient concern.

Irwin speaks of the “ghunj” as a term to refer to a distinctive waggling gait especially during sex. He first mentions the “ghunj” in reference to women and the fascination with their behinds, but two pages later he characterizes a typical homosexual as having hairy ankles, wearing long robes, and when he walks, his legs sway. This reminded me of the “ghunj,” which could further complicate the identification of sex if a woman is disguising herself as a man to attract men, but those around her could mistake her for a homosexual man. Maybe there is a distinction between a female’s “ghunj” and a male’s swagger.