Actually, he might even have meant something quite different to what we think. After reading this piece, it kinda suggests he was talking about the surrounding culture rather than same-sex relations specifically.
No Gays in Iran… But Many Same-Sex Couples
Editor’s Note: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comment that homosexuality does not exist in Iran like it does in the West is true in a sense, writes anthropologist William Beeman. In fact, same-sex relations in Iran do look very different from what is called gay behavior in the West.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was derided for his statement in a Sept. 24 speech at Columbia University that homosexuality doesn’t exist in Iran. Though many Americans may find it incredible, differences in the construction of sexual behavior do exist across cultures.
As an anthropologist, I can state with confidence that sexuality varies tremendously between cultures. The notion that one is either “gay” or “straight” does not accord with what we observe in human sexual behavior, which is far more flexible. This categorization is an artifact of American culture, which glories in binary categories for classifying people. Folks that identify as “bisexual” (yet another ambiguous category) in the United States often get grief from both the gay and straight community for “deluding” themselves about their sexuality.
Of course it is impossible to discern precisely what President Ahmadinejad meant in his remarks. But what is true is the construction of same-sex behavior and, indeed, same-sex affection in Iran is extremely different than in Europe and America. There has been a recent phenomenon of Western-style “gay culture” emerging in Iran – replete with gay bars, clubs and house parties – but this is very new, largely limited to the upper classes, and likely not known to President Ahmadinejad, whose social milieu is the middle and lower-middle class. This recent Western-style gay phenomenon is distinct from ordinary same-sex behavior as practiced traditionally in Iran. Indeed, there was not even a word for homosexuality in Persian before the 20th century. It had to be invented. The term used by President Ahmadinejad was “hamjensbaz,” a neologism that literally means, “playing with the same sex.”
In Iran, same-sex sexual behavior is classified rigidly into active and passive roles. The Arabic terms “fa’el” and “maf’oul” (active and passive – actually grammatical terms used to describe active and passive verbs) were the common designation for these roles. The passive partner is still called by the Arabic term “obneh,” or, more crudely, “kuni.” (Kun means anus.) The active vs. passive same-sex preference is well known in the Western world, but it is constructed quite differently in Iran and other Arab and Mediterranean cultures.
Active partners in Iran do not consider themselves to be “homosexual.” Indeed, it is a kind of macho boast in some circles that one has been an active partner with another male. Passive partners are denigrated and carry a life-long stigma if their sexual role is known, even after a single incident. They have been deflowered, as it were, in the same way that women might lose their virginity, and they are considered to be “xarob” or “destroyed.”
In actual fact, many men are “versatile” in their sexual activity but if they are known to have relations with other men, they will always claim in public to be the active partner. Same-sex relations between females are undoubtedly practiced, but this is the deepest secret in Iran, and rarely talked about at all.
Emotional relations are very different. Men and women both may become exceptionally attached to people of the same sex, to the point that Westerners would swear that they must have a sexual relationship. It is not necessarily so. Kissing, holding hands, weeping, jealousy, physical contact and all the signs of partnership can exist without any sexual activity or, indeed, with an undercurrent of absolute horror that it might take place, because of the active-passive split in sexual classification and men’s fear of being pegged as a passive partner. A man who truly loves another man doesn’t want to degrade him by making him a passive sex partner.
More typically, male teenagers who become exceptionally attached may marry sisters in order to become kin to each other, thereby creating a lifelong bond. There is even a quasi-marriage ceremony based on the idea of “muta,” or temporary marriage, through which two men or two women can become fictive “siblings.” This takes care of many things, allowing intimate relations, and intimacy between family relations, but also imposing an even stronger taboo against sexual relations, which would be considered incest.
Iranians who come to Europe and the United States may “discover” that they are “gay” once they are liberated from the rigid cultural system that binds them into these polarized active-passive roles.
To be sure, sodomy is punishable by death in Iran, but such executions have been historically extremely rare compared with the routine incidence of same-sex sexual behavior in Iran. Much was made in the United States of two boys who were executed in the city of Mashhad a few years ago for “being homosexual,” as the Western press put it. However, they were executed because they had essentially committed what we would call statutory rape on an under-aged boy. The boy’s father was beside himself with rage and grief, and pressed charges. In many such cases, the shame of the family and the victim himself is so great that no one ever finds out.
In the end, both the United States and Iran classify sexuality in a way that fails to accord with the range of actual human proclivities. However, there is no doubt that the two systems are very different.
Oh so now its lost in translation. Convenient.
Why not get Ahmadinejad to explain it in simple terms wthat we all can understand> And maybe answer the question without asking a question?
So somebody out there is saying our gays, well, suck. That ours are somehow not “equal” to Iran’s.
Much was made in the United States of two boys who were executed in the city of Mashhad a few years ago for “being homosexual,” as the Western press put it. However, they were executed because they had essentially committed what we would call statutory rape on an under-aged boy.
So it was paedophilia first, homesexuality second. Fine kill the bastards. But wait, absolutley nothing we coudl posibly do “wrong” in the West warrants a death sentence say those enamoured by and beholden to the teachings of Ahmadinejad.
Not even Bushitler may be excecuted.
Much of what the US administration says is lost in translation apparently (can be technically explained away via context), so why should this be any different (aside from the fact that IT INVOLVES ACTUAL TRANSLATION).
As per I’m predictably being painted as being one-sided, when in fact all I’m doing is pointing out that it might not as completely one-sided as is continually put foward. I could post 354467 threads about how evil Ahmadinejad is, but what purpose would that serve? How would that further any sort of discussion at all?
As per I’m predictably being painted as being one-sided, when in fact all I’m doing is pointing out that it might not as completely one-sided as is continually put foward. I could post 354467 threads about how evil Ahmadinejad is, but what purpose would that serve? How would that further any sort of discussion at all?
Shouldn’t you be erring on the side of caution rather than offering excuses? Some idiot student getting tased by cops, and another punk osrtracized for prinitng “Fuck Bush” in his paper is clear evidence to the alert elite that fasscism is real and thriving in the US.
That I would call them both stupid morons is already indicative of where I stand on the matter? I recently siad black comedians need to get away from their tired bug-eyed indignant schick and I was tagged a racist pretty quick.
However their homosexuals in Iran interact and live can’t be so completely different than what ours do as to defy (Western) description.
Check out what Homan has to say about Iran. That should provide lots and lots of context to his statements about gays.
In terms of his religous intolerance to them, or his killing of them? I don’t think anyone (sane) is arguing that he’s not one f*cked up dude. I’m just saying that our interpretations of what he has said might not always be 100% accurate. We pick up something and charge off with it, when it might be that we’ve got it slightly wrong. Sometimes wrong enough to change the meaning entirely.
It seems that everyone jumps on everything he says (translated) and uses that as well. When in fact his treatment of gay people (putting them to death) appears to be horrific and is enough to condemn the guy alone.
In Iran, same-sex sexual behavior is classified rigidly into active and passive roles. The Arabic terms “fa’el” and “maf’oul” (active and passive – actually grammatical terms used to describe active and passive verbs) were the common designation for these roles. The passive partner is still called by the Arabic term “obneh,” or, more crudely, “kuni.” (Kun means anus.)
Cmon…
maf’oul = mouth full
Kun = coon (der.)
A man who truly loves another man doesn’t want to degrade him by making him a passive sex partner.
Now theres an idea some westerners might consider taking up. Men who truly love women shouldn’t talk them into accepting ass-to-mouth, or even posing for topless pics on pages 3 of some daily Euro tabloid rag, as scoring one for wromens’ lib.
As per I’m predictably being painted as being one-sided, when in fact all I’m doing is pointing out that it might not as completely one-sided as is continually put foward. I could post 354467 threads about how evil Ahmadinejad is, but what purpose would that serve? How would that further any sort of discussion at all?
Shouldn’t you be erring on the side of caution rather than offering excuses? Some idiot student getting tased by cops, and another punk osrtracized for prinitng “Fuck Bush” in his paper is clear evidence to the alert elite that fasscism is real and thriving in the US.
That I would call them both stupid morons is already indicative of where I stand on the matter? I recently siad black comedians need to get away from their tired bug-eyed indignant schick and I was tagged a racist pretty quick.
However their homosexuals in Iran interact and live can’t be so completely different than what ours do as to defy (Western) description.
See my last post.
I misunderstood you in that thread about black comedians. That was my bad.
Homosexuals Mock ‘Last Supper’ With Sex-Toys Twist
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 25, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Organizers of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair—sponsored by Miller Brewing Co.—have portrayed Christ and his disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement, and the conservative group Concerned Women for America is complaining about the hypocrisy of it.
“The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper,” CWA said on its Web site.
Cool.
Of course nobody asks gays who and whats going on over there. They should know best:
At least one group is disproving Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s assertion that there’s no such thing as a gay Iranian. Ahmadinejad said Monday at Columbia University, ‘’In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.’’
Actually, there’s at least one. The 2006 International Mr. Gay competition included 25-year-old Kaveh Ghaderi, who represented Iran (pictured, top left). He was born in Tehran and, at the time of the competition, was a student in Canada. (The winner of the 2007 competition happened to be Israel’s representative, Nathan Shaked from Tel Aviv.)
“He was very courageous,” Mr. Gay organizer Don Spradlin said of Ghaderi. Living in Canada made the handsome student less vulnerable than if he’d been in Iran, but risk remained. A winner in a Mr. Gay contest in Poland in 2005 was expelled from college when his story appeared in a local newspaper, according to Spradlin. A Serbian candidate resigned just last week, Spradlin added, because a photo of him in the contest appeared in a Balkans journal.
Aren’t those European countries and stuff?
Oh and whats this little sidebar item?
Gay artist burns antique $60,000 Koran
published Friday, July 27, 2007
Charles Merrill, the out gay artist who gained notoriety for editing the Bible with a black marker and a pair of scissors, now says he’s made what he called a statement against Muslim homophobia by burning an antique Koran valued at $60,000.
”The purpose of editing and burning Abrahamic Holy Books is to eliminate homophobic hate,” Merrill, 73, said in a statement from his gallery, the Broadway Gallery in New York City. “Both ancient books are terrorist manuals.”
He inherited the book from his late wife, Evangeline Johnson Merrill, daughter of the founder of international pharmaceutical conglomerate Johnson & Johnson, who was given the valuable text by the king of Jordan during a United Nations peacekeeping mission.
“Airplanes are flown into buildings because of words, and hate crimes against gays,” Merrill said in his written statement.
Awesome. Although $60,000 coulda fed a bunch of Iraqi orphans....
cked_word">Ahmadinejad</SPAN>/Iran - a context free zone.
Check out what [cked_word">url</SPAN>=cked_word">http</SPAN>://cked_word">www</SPAN>.cked_word">homanla</SPAN>.cked_word">org</SPAN>/]cked_word">Homan</SPAN>[/cked_word">url</SPAN>] has to say about Iran. That should provide lots and lots of context to his statements about gays.
In terms of his cked_word">religous</SPAN> intolerance to them, or his killing of them? I don’t think anyone (sane) is arguing that he’s not one f*cked up dude. I’m just saying that our interpretations of what he has said might not always be 100% accurate. We pick up something and charge off with it, when it might be that we’ve got it slightly wrong. Sometimes wrong enough to change the meaning entirely.
It seems that everyone jumps on everything he says (translated) and uses that as well. When in fact his treatment of gay people (putting them to death) appears to be horrific and is enough to condemn the guy alone.
My point is that his actions provide the supporting evidence that the translations are, at least in essence, correct. We would see discrepancies between the actions and words if the translations were inaccurate.
If the translation called for death to all gays, but the activities of the Iraq government he controlled were neutral or even supportive of gays there would be a basis to disbelieve the translations. When the translation has him claiming they don’t exist and the evidence is that his government is actively seeking to destroy the community, there is no basis to believe the translations are wrong.
Actions speak louder than words, and reinforce translations.
Ah but the translation is not just that “gays don’t exist” fullstop, rather that “homosexuality does not exist in Iran like it does in the West”.
So “like it does” might very well mean “in the same way”.
The person who wrote what I posted is:
William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. He has been conducting research in Iran for more than 30 years, and is a fluent speaker of Persian. He is author of Language, Status and Power in Iran and The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other, the second edition of which will be published later this year by the University of Chicago Press.
And given the differences he pointed out, it would seem to make more sense.
Ah, I just had a brain fart. I now know what he means: There is no such thing as homosexuality in Iran. Gays are simply people, women are equals, colored are brothers. There are no categorizing, even dividing terms like our “straight” and “gay”, “African-Americans, etc. There are only Iranians. And godless pig infidel foreigners that must die.
Ah but the translation is not just that “gays don’t exist” fullstop, rather that “homosexuality does not exist in Iran like it does in the West”.
So “like it does” might very well mean “in the same way”.
Here are his four consecutive sentences regarding the subject of homosexuals and/or homosexuality as reported in the press:
“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.”
“We don’t have that in our country.”
“In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.”
“I do not know who has told you that we have it.”
1. The first 3 statements are patently false. No matter what he meant those first 3 statements are simply not true. And it’s clear the word “that” in the second sentence and the words “this” and “phenomenon” in the 3rd sentence refer to homosexuality.
Beeman is full of himself . . . he cannot pretend that sodomy (and other practices) between consenting males is not an act of homosexuality no matter what culture he’s talking about. And he clearly describes what a “passive” partner is in Iran. Therefore, Beeman makes it clear that homosexual sodomy is indeed practiced in Iran.
It doesn’t matter how a person, or even a culture, wants to view/label/define their sexual practices. Call it what you will, by any other name sodomy is still sodomy . . . and when two consenting males engage in the practice it’s homosexuality.
Given the four sentences above taken in context, Ahmadinejad made himself clear enough . . . and he certainly could have cleared up any misunderstanding since then if he meant something else. And remember, when he was first asked, he tried to avoid the subject all together with some lame statement about capital punishment.
If we are going to break it all down, we probably need the whole transcript.
Rather than an argument about whether it is technically ‘homosexuality’ or not, is he not arguing that various actions mean different things in Iran?
That’s exactly what Beeman is saying . . . as if that had some bearing on the matter. He’s trying to convince you that Ahmadinejad is contextually correct in light cultural differences.
That doesn’t change anything. Why? Because Beeman cannot point to any one specific sexual act that isn’t practiced by some Iranians. So exactly, what phenomenon is Ahmadinejad referring to? The fact is it doesn’t matter . . . he wrong.
So exactly, what phenomenon is Ahmadinejad referring to? The fact is it doesn’t matter . . . he wrong.
The Western phenomena of people being considered either gay or straight. The fact that sexuality varies tremendously between cultures, and that the Western phenomena of being one or the other doesn’t exist there. Is one interpretation.
But what difference can a cultural meaning have when they are the same act? It may be more or less permissible, allowable, or whatever, but it is still the same act. Therefore, Ahmadinejad cannot say certain sexual phenomenon do not occur in Iran when all sexual phenomenon indeed occur there . . . no matter the name.
Why are you obsessing about acts? Acts have different meanings, in all walk of life. Why should sexuality be any different? In Western society homosexuality tends to be more about what acts are carried out in the bedroom. Whereas in Iranian society, same sex relations might not have the same culture surrounding them. According to Beeman, who seems to be very qualified to provide an assessment on this issue, emotional relations are very different.
In India men hold hands in the street and sit in each others laps. If you did that in the US, it would mean something quite different. Wouldn’t it?
I note that he also says that executions have been historically extremely rare compared with the routine incidence of same-sex sexual behavior in Iran.
