Anal versus Oral: The “Immoralities” of Sodomy Uncovered

Alright, I’ll admit, perhaps the title is a bit misleading but it was catchy enough to get your attention. Now that I have it, I suppose it’s time to do something incredibly intellectual and profoundly moving with it. So in this entry, I hope to look at the etymology of the word sodomy through its groundings in the Biblical story of the City of Sodom, and its influences on contemporary perspectives of “natural” sex and American Sodomy Laws. It is through this analysis that I hope to bring you to the tantalizing climax that laws regarding anal sex, oral sex, and sex in general, with two consenting people, are not grounded in an ideal “natural law”, rather a generalized Judeo-Christian perspective on sex. All of this will be done in the hopes of pulling the fear of that many have of anal sex as “unnatural” into the realm of “just another sex position” for both men and women, straight or gay, and everyone in between to choose to enjoy, if they choose.

To begin, sodomy, in its broadest sense can be defined as an act of sexual intercourse involving anal or oral sex. Etymologically, the word traces itself from biblical story of the citizens of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, whose so-called deviant and unnatural sexual acts incurred the wrath of God. The excerpt below from the New Testament, of the Epistle of Jude, considers the “immoral” sexual aspects of Sodom:

‘…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (v. 7, English Standard Version).

So what exactly are “immoral” and “unnatural” sexual acts that God is apparently punishing entire cities for? Did the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah really establish homosexuality as a sin because of its aspect of anal intercourse as “unnatural”? The nature surrounding this Biblical story is still out to debate today. The major two views on interpretation of the text are divided as follows:

1. Historically, its been interpreted that the sins of Sodom was the homoerotic act of sodomy. Many point to this Biblical story as justification that homosexuality as an identity is “unnatural” and “sinful” through the eyes of Judeo-Christianity.
2. Others argue that the sins of Sodom had more to do with inhospitality than sexual transgressions or differing sexual identities against God. Biblical scholars such as Jimmy Creech further explain, “People of biblical times did not understand sexual orientation, there is nothing in the bible and nothing in the scripture to condemn loving same gender relationships.”

Although today, for the most part, legal interpretations of sodomy are still considered sexually deviant in nature because of the persistence in social thought regarding the first interpretation. The influence of social Judeo-Christian thought has been so great that many argue for sodomy laws claiming that it goes against “nature” and is “that most detestable sin.”
Thereby, sex under this working definition is supposed to be between a man and a woman, and must only be acts leading to procreation. But where does that leave the elderly, the infertile, or those on birth control that engage in sexual activity? Where does that leave women? As biological time clocks that are available for procreative sex only? What about those who may engage in “procreative sex,” but enjoy heating things up beforehand with “unnatural” sexual acts, such as oral sex? Is what Bill and Monica did, in our Nation’s very White House considered “unnatural” sodomy?

Notice that there is also a cultural perspective of what is considered “natural”. For many, biology is oversimplified alongside the human body, and the “natural” tends to mean procreative sexual activity between male and female organs. Although I would argue that the concept of “nature,” as ironic as it may sound, isn’t necessarily based on some uniform concept underlining all of creation; rather thoughts of “nature” and the “natural” really fall under differing aspects of cultural relativism. What one culture may find “natural” or “normal” doesn’t necessarily hold true for another. One may argue science points to the “natural,” yet what about those cultures where science holds no grounding or meaning?

Overall, as a nation, it’s time to consider that sodomy laws now in place in some states are still fundamentally grounded a debatable interpretation of the Biblical story of Sodom and it’s considered “unnatural” based on Judeo-Christianity’s perspective of the natural. For Americans to consider this, that a law is based on a certain theology, undermines the very concept of democratic freedom. We are not a nation of one religion, hence why should we continue to regulate private sexual activities and positions between consenting people under an umbrella of one religion’s perspective?

Let’s get nice and cozy: How the AIDS/HIV epidemic is continuing to be the silent killer.

Above, Isadore Boni of the San Carlos Apache Nation goes public with his HIV/AIDS
diagnosis in hopes of raising danger of the disease to
Native Americans.

My cousin Alpo had just returned from prison and I was home for the winter break from boarding school. It was the first time that I had seen him in four years and I barely recognized him. At first I thought that it was because the last memory I had of him was beating my dog as a small child, or because I didn’t recognize all the tattoos that littered his face and arms. When I walked into my gramma’s house, and saw him, I gave a quick jump, not expecting to see him and suddenly terrified at the thought that my scrawny 9-year-old frame was alone with him.

He eyed me up and down and spoke to me in Apache. His voice was hallow and empty, like he had just swallowed something too quickly. Our conversation, which I can still hear in my mind when I hold still, went something like this:

“Gramma told you?”
“Told me what?” I said.
“That I got the white man’s sickness?”
“No. Which one?”
“The one that eats your soul. Never heard of it till today, it’s called H. I don’t know, the white nurse at I.H.S. said I was going to die. I might get all sorts of diseases because my soul can’t fight them. She said it was because of all the tattoos.”
“What does your soul and tattoos have anything to do with each other?”
“I don’t know, she didn’t explain it too good.”
“You scared?” I asked.
“Yea.”

I remember eyeing Alpo when he told me this, not quite comprehending all that it entailed. I had never heard of this “H” sickness that he told me he had. I remember the white nurse that he went to see at Indian Health Service coming to see our family. I remember translating her words for my gramma to understand. I remember having difficulty understanding what she meant when she said that Alpo’s immune system will deteriorate. First, I didn’t really understand what an immune system was, and I also didn’t understand how it related to his soul and tattoos. I asked my gramma later, and she didn’t know.

I returned to school and a couple of months later I remember watching ABC News in our boarding school commons. They had a special on the “AIDS/HIV epidemic”. I remember being terrified watching this program, because I realized that it’s what Alpo had, and that there was no escaping this death sentence. I started crying thinking that AIDS was everywhere; on me and on everything I touched. It was this fear, that I was going to die from something so small, that I couldn’t even see or understand, that shook my core being. I tried to find out more about it, I remember going to see my principal, the school nurse and even the eighth grade science teacher, but no one really seemed to know.

I remember looking up the definition of an immune system in the dictionary and it had nothing to do with tattoos or Alpo’s soul. To this day I wonder what that nurse was trying to have me translate to my grandmother. Perhaps it was my nine-year-old mind not able to pick up on any of her subtle conversation. Then again, it wouldn’t really matter; Alpo’s soul had nothing to do with it.

Fast track eleven years later, Alpo has died, eight more known cases of people now living with HIV/AIDS on my reservation of only 2, 500 people have surfaced. One, my first cousin Donna, sixteen years old, has contracted it through rape a year earlier. Two of the other cases involved a man coming home from prison infected and unknowingly passing it onto his female partner.

Fast track to today, I sat in class discussing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the gay community during the 1980s. We discussed about how the sickness was at first coined the “gay disease” and it’s numerous connections with issues of morality. We also considered how it no longer is just the “gay” disease, how it affects drug addicts, many blacks and latinos, “people of color,” (which in class feels like ironically it doesn’t seem to include Native Americans), and so on. We talked briefly about how HIV/AIDS doesn’t discriminate who is infected by race, gender, sexuality or social class, it is impacting everyone. We noted that medicine has also made leaps and bounds that now; HIV/AIDS is no longer just a death sentence. Prevention and information programs in mainstream culture in the United States have also made it so that people know more about it.

But what about the people, such as Native communities that are not receiving this information? What about communities in different African countries that beginning to encounter, or continuing to deal with this epidemic? What about the rate of people being infected daily with HIV that continues to grow? What about the places where even the language, or culture to discuss such things is not allowed?

Then a comment from a fellow classmate floored me, for him, AIDS/HIV was an issue of the past that today, most people don’t need to deal with; as if the fight is over. Now, it’s not something that as a gay man, he feels that this generation is having to deal with. To this student, I say that I am dealing with it, my community is dealing with it, and so are many others.

To me, his comment rang of the concept that it’s just an “African” problem, or the “Gay Disease”, or just a problem for this small group of people, not everyone. Now I’m not saying that we should all go out screaming in fear on the streets that AIDS/HIV is the end of the world. But at the same time, if we allow ourselves to think that the problem is contained or segregated, we are still allowing entire communities to parish in our ignorance that it’s not “our” problem. If one person a day contracts HIV, it is all of our problem, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or social class. As a human beings, we cannot allow ourselves to become cozy and fall into this rut of compliance, allowing it to infect another person. If we do, then AIDS/HIV will continue to be a silent killer that we are allowing to exist.

Alpo, in his younger days...
We will never forget you...

Naughty pictures

Recently someone asked me to explain the use of images on the side bar of my blog and why I chose to display pictures of certain Native "two-spirits". For Jicarillas, Nadleeyee, or "two spirits" have existed since the beginning of our creation story. Some have argued that linguistically, in Jicarilla, it parallels the English translation of a "cross dresser". Others have looked that how the word functions in a cultural sphere of understanding and how it's used in everyday terminology. My understanding of the word Nadleeyee, as a Native Jicarilla speaker, is a person whose spirit “chooses” what gender role to encompass. Traditionally and spiritually, it’s believed that Jicarillas are reincarnated and sometimes, the spirit and the body aren’t perfectly matched. So, when children are born, they have no sex and its left up to their “spirit” to show itself and “choose” what gender roles to encompass. Usually, this happens at the early stages of development and the child will usually decided where it feels more comfortable, with the men, or the women. After it’s seen that the child has “chosen,” the spiritual naming ceremony, occurs, usually around puberty. This is when the child is not only seen as an adult, but is also seen as having a fully developed societal role.

It’s important to note though, that the word Nadleeyee makes no implications in the sexual orientation of the person. For instance, a child that is born with male organs, and whose spirit “chooses” to reveal itself as a woman, may have either a male or female partner, or both. Here, as gender is seen to have fluidity, so is sexuality.

This concept of sexual fluidity, as well as gender fluidity is something that I see as imperative to the discussion of the LGBT identity and the concept of Nadleeyee lends to the understanding of that concept as practice today.