Week 7 Readings

What I thought was interesting about both Murray readings was how nonchalantly he spoke about what is supposed to be a sexual and cultural taboo. Many assume that homosexuality but it seems as if it not only is a normal part of Middle Eastern life, but that its existence is accepted and perpetuated, even by parents, as seen in the the story Murray shares about the two men in a 12-year relationship. The existence of "brideprice" certainly indicates a universal acceptance of sexual relations between men. In the first piece, Will Roscoe and Stephen O. Murray relay a laundry list of examples of homosexuality, and gender and sexuality identity in the Middle East and Islam, mentioning, male entertainers, prostitutes, sworn virgins, etc. So then why do people consider it taboo, when it is nowhere near uncommon and when people speak so glibly?

The juxtaposition between discretion and Murray describes homosexuality in terms of secrecy, saying, "The respect for normas evidenced by discretion and covertness keep even acted-upon desires from challenging the public norms or from becoming the basis for mobilizing those with similar experiences and similar desires that might lead to public challenge" (Murray 42). It almost seems as if these ideas of homosexuality and sexual action are norms themselves. They are, in fact, necessary to keeping the social order, despite being taboo or frowned upon. The distinction lies in how public these actions are. According to Maarten Schild, "In practice it is only public transgression of Islamic morals that is condemned, and therefore Islamic law stresses the role of eyewitnesses to an offence" (Murray 15). Despite the fact that members of the society are aware, the actions are still considered socially unaccepted. As long as they are not physically publicized, they can be ignored or people can pretend they do not exist.