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.

To begin with, “TSM” made Spain sound like one of those angry kids in highschool who beat up all of the gay kids because he himself was gay. The two cultures seemed to get along for a while until Spain freaked out about its cultural instability. I love that it is the homosexual’s fault for all of Spain’s problems. But the real ringer was the idea that homosexuality was a “Virus Oriental” and therefore curable. Now where have we heard that before?

What strikes me as odd is the fact that some Arabs were just as disgusted with the idea of same-sex intimacy as the Spanish Christians. However it seems that the Sodomitic Moore became too strong of a bad guy. It was the potent signifer of cultural, sexual, and racial diference that the two cultures recognized.

There is also the idea of the Moors being too indulgent (Moor+heaven=tons of food) so they become homosexual pagans. I’m still a little muddled as to how the image of the gay Moor came to be but from the reading I have gathered that it was mainly the evils of propaganda that forever soiled their image. There was a deliberate confustion of cultural and sexual differences in Sodomy. My favorite line from this work is that the image of the Sodmitic Moors was a “by-product of the forgoing sexual, cultural, and gender difference into a servicable discourse by which the Christians might expose the “enemy within.” I thnk that pretty much means point and gasp at the homosexuals and they’re bound to give in.

Now onto “Chaste Subjects” which I think was a stretch and a half on the author’s part. It was like she was looking at a poem about flowers and analyzing its affect on the price of oil. I mean, come on. Yes, a chaste knight is odd. And yes, the devil did dress up as beautiful woment to try and seduce the pious young knights. But to insinuate a homosexual undertone and quesitoning of sexuality was a bit much.

I am totally on board with the oddness of having Chaste knights. It defeats the whole purpose. A knight goes for adventure to get sex from the greatful dame later on. To not accept the sex disrupts the cycle in which chivalrich prowess is rewarded. Sex is a reward for the exploits and battles are a way to prove chivalric prowess. to overcome the temptations of flesh demonstrates the defining relationhip of gender and desire. These ideas make sense. I can see them in my head and they connect quite well.

But then suddenly, the author pulls this ide out of her hat that the shifting, uncertain gender of the devil is an object of deire for the poor knight. At one point she states that the knights establish that fighting is with men, sex is with women. But then she does this whole analysis about the devil chanign sexes and how that maesses with gender  roles and yadda yadda yadda, something about using the figure of women to verbalize the concerns of the church and I’m scratching my head. She may not come out and say it but I felt that she was hinting to the confusions of sexuality with this devil and the relationship the knight feels toward it. I think that was just a bit much. These men deire to not deisre. That’s that.