Homosexuality in Pre-Modern Iran

Despite the prohibition of homosexuality in Islam, same-sex relations were a common practice that was implicitly recognized in the Pre-modern Persian world. The relations were seeming in asymmetrical patterns, involving partners of different ages and social standing. As such, the term “homosexual” or someone who enjoyed same-sex relations wasn’t something under which society was structured. Rather, a “status-defined-homosexuality” held a stationary distinction.

Each of the two played a distinct role that was parallel to those of heterosexual marriages. The Master, the “active partner” would get into a sexual relationship with an adolescent boy, the “passive recipient” of his affection, usually a mentee of his. Therefore, the active partner had a big responsibility for his future. As such, he bared teaching him and mentoring him, per which the young boy was expected to allow him sexual favors.

Many reasons intertwined with the shallow and inerratic—in a way that proved silent/discreet—acceptance of homoerotic relations within Iranian society at the time. Amongst them revolved religious standings. As much of “abomination” homosexual relations were seen in Islamic points of view—as proven in a verse that questioned the reason for which men would chase same-sex intercourse when “God made the vagina” for their sexual pleasure—, the verses in which it chooses a punishment for such activity were ambiguous.

This created a difficult challenge for the judges at the time since they also needed four men to give testimony of witnessing the penetration occur, which was virtually impossible. Even after the culmination of the special circumstances under which served the purpose of their legal prosecution, and therefore rendered the “defendant” guilty of legal—mainly religious—breaches, the judge would find himself spiraled (we refer to the judge as male, as no woman could procure such position in Iranian society at the time) into ambiguous verses and religious texts that never specified punishment regarding the “abnormality” of the actions portrayed.

Thus, the pothole created a special circumstance that breached the constraints and fabric of religious rules and thus the laws that at once reigned the legal courts and proceedings. Amongst the legal spiral that involved such a sensitive subject, well-documented accounts of literature and poetry, as well as art, also hint at an idealism of engaging in sexual activity with male youth, or “Amrad” in Persian.

It was thus seen as “extra masculine” to engage in sexual activity with both genders. As sharing a bed with a woman was deemed manly, doing so with a young unmatured male was seen as “extra dignifying” of a male’s masculine attribution. As such, it was perceived normal for an adolescent male to submit to his “master” sexual urges, so long as he didn’t continue to be submissive when becoming an adult, as he would then be considered an “imperfect man”.

Sirus Shamisa’s renowned book explores the homoerotic relations in Premodern Iran. He states that “Persian lyrical literature is essentially homosexual literature”. In nearly half of the poems at the time, the subject of writing was in unquestionable affirmation of a young adolescent boy, who was seen at the time as the prime of human beauty.

In Persian linguistics, adjectives could be applied to both genders, rendering ambiguous texts and poems that can be perpetrated for both genders. However, homosexual intercourse in Persian is called “lavat”, and the “active” partner was labeled “the doer”. Amongst the spirals of consequences and human genetics, once the adolescent boy proved to sustain a mustache “khatt” on his face, he no longer would be considered the passive “object of desire”.

As such, the mustache of a man was considered a badge of dominance. Therefore, shaving a man’s beard was considered “emasculating” and would therefore be humiliating as he would then resemble an amrad. Male slaves would at the time be highly valued for their beardless faces, and some would be educated to play musical instruments and write poetry, and thus be valued much more.

Though throughout the Islamic religion sexual mutilation was condemned, it was a common practice that executed male concubines at the time. Thus, kings would gather a collection of their favorite “gholams”, from which sexual favors were exploited. Many such gholams rose in ranks and thus manifolds of Iranian kings and courtships were of slave rank originally.

Though homosexuality was seen through diverse scopes in the Persian lifestyle that preceded pre-modern Iran, various accounts of literature provide exemplary and accurate realities of Middle Eastern citizens. Various poets, such as Saadi Shirazi, have written about the homoerotic and sexual aversions of elite men and mentors.

Shirazi lamented through his poems the sexual encounters and the sadistic nature of some Iranian men at the time. Though the mentee was to accept the mentorship, he was not expected to be willing toward his sexual aversions, as that would be precepted as un-dignifying of his manhood. Various poetic accounts, such as Shirazi’s, point to the two-sided coin of the pre-modern asymmetrical homosexuality. On one facet, love, and changing gifts are accounted. On the other, detailed, and pornographic accounts of the rape of an adolescent boy in the middle of the night can be found, demonstrating the reality of sexual courtships in pre-modern Iran.

However, though pre-modern Iran preceded homosexual relations and rape as significant offenses, the elite of such times abided by different rules. While men from the same social class would try to conceal the relationship with their amrads, those of social superiority were less averted to conceal such relations, for the presence and ownership of male concubines was seen as normal in such courts. As such, ownership of male concubines through which sexual activity was performed, or when males were to be hired for their sexual favors, was seen as normal.

Littlemore, accounts of homosexuality, as proven by the literal accounts of those times, precede the Western scope of homosexuality. Such men at the time had no distinction between “homosexual” and “heterosexual”, though prostitution and rape were serious offenses, the Iranian elites would be depicted still as ordinary and masculine men despite their sexual inclinations, so long as they don’t submit, as in such cases they lose their masculine status.

This article uses the following sources: Sexual Politics in Modern Iran. (Janet Afary, Cambridge University Press, 2009). pp. 79-107