Citation

Fischel JJ. J. Homosex. 2017; 64(14): 2030-2056.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00918369.2017.1293403

PMID

28278060

Abstract

This article advocates a sodomitical approach to sodomy. Its approach is framed alongside and against three historical glosses on sodomy law: first, that sodomy law instantiates homophobia; second, that sodomy law targets sexual violence against boys; third, that sodomy law reaches assaultive sex against women that did not register as assaultive enough to qualify as "rape" by sexist juries. The first story of sodomy law is mostly wrong. The other two glosses pivot on protection: protection of boys or protection of girls and women. These accounts, tethered to identitarianism, underplay sodomy law's multiplicity, as a source and symptom of our conflicted understandings of when sex is sex and when sexual violence is rape.The first part of the article explains my choice of sodomitical sites. The second part complicates the story of sodomy as phobic. The third part complements the historiography of sodomy as protective against boys. The fourth part argues that the gloss on sodomy law as a corrective to disbelieved women is appealing but untrue. The final part makes the case that fellatio matters. The prevalence of forcible oral sex in sodomy cases intimates a cultural pluripotence of oral sex, as well as shifting definitions--in law and life--of sex and rape. This last story of sodomy law remains undetected under an identitarian radar.

Language: en

Keywords

Fellatio; homophobia; identitarianism; New Orleans; rape law; sexual violence; sodomy