The act of penetration is a phallocentric tale as old as time itself. Sexual positionality unfortunate as it may, has a level of embedded moral worth within it. This is particularly the case in queer sexual dynamics (for sake of clarity this article mainly focuses on male-centric homosexuality). This article attempts to cover the historical basis of sexual positionality in connection to duty, moral worth, and value to connect these issues to modern problems regarding the apparent increased feminisation and infantilisation of those that choose to be penetrated.
Bottoming in Ancient Greece and Roman societies
Humans exist within distinct periods of knowledge and existence- these epistemes as Foucault calls them are the production of knowledge and thereby power within our given frame of being. The games of truth that the Ancient Greeks and Romans came to see themselves as desiring individuals are very different games that we play today. In saying this there is a relevance in reflecting upon the past’s usage of desire- it can at times inform the present, as well as informing our understanding and interpretation of the present.
The concept of homo and heterosexuality are in the scheme of human society- a novel concept. Homosexuality was first coined in English in 1892, with heterosexuality coming a few years later[1]. Sexual activity as a concept is one best identified through the problematisation of practices of the self or as it is also known an ‘’aesthetics of experience’’[2].
Same sex relations were both legally and cultural accepted, and commonly engaged in within Ancient Greek and Roman societies. The relationship that most dominated Greece was one that delineated positionality within age. Those individuals classified as a boy (of who could not grow a beard) and a man (those who could grow a beard). Positionality and power are two key concepts that defined ancient understandings of same sex relations. The person to penetrate was also the dominant, the person to be penetrated was the submissive. Under this penetration=power model, sexual acts constituted a zero-sum game, under which the person penetrating always won. Important to note here is that because the Greeks had no delineation between hetero and homosexual persons or acts, this applied universally. The penetrative act that arose from a male dominating his wife, a woman, or a slave male was understood to be an act to confirm the active partner’s superior social status[3]. Sex between two male citizens was an altogether different affair- to be penetrated was to be placed within the inferior and feminising position.
In a similar fashion to the Catholic and Christian communities of today, the Greeks found a loophole in this ‘feminisation’ problem. The adoption of intercrural sexual acts was commonplace in the Greek world- whereby the older partner- erastes would insert his penis between the eromenos’ thighs. This thus averted the more pronounced act of anal penetration and was a way for the younger partner to avoid the accusation of being effeminate.
Among the Romans the concept of stuprum placed certain legal and moral restrictions upon same sex relations through the institution of monogamy once married (prevented sex with male citizens). The Romans adopted a priapic model of masculinity- this term refers to the minor garden god, Priapus, who sported a massive phallus. This priapic model of masculinity legalised and valorised the impenetrability of the male citizen, it also placed the ability to penetrate to a high social status- and those that were penetrated to a low social status- that of women, and that of slaves. Those Roman men that engaged in being penetrated were called cinaedus and were given the attributes of being passive sexually and effeminate with their gender presentation.
Whilst both Greek and Roman systems of sexuality deviate at certain points, they both follow what Aristotle says ‘’the female, as female, is passive, and the male, as male, is active’’[4]. The Ancient Greeks had a concept called aphrodisia- it was an activity that involved two actors having specific roles and functions- the one that performs, and the one on whom it is performed. For a male citizen, two things displayed immorality, doing things in excess, and being passive.
Here within the Ancient societies, we can start to see a pattern- one that has become even more complex with the establishment of homo and heterosexuality- the linking of the ‘natural role of women’ with the sexual acts of male-to-male relations. There are constant and consistent patterns made between those that are penetrated or bottom with those that take the position, the place of someone of lower status- in many instances this is a slave or a woman.
Ancient society did accept same-sex relations, but it had limitations. Those that had sex too frequently, those that were seen as too easy, and those that were considered effeminate- even if they were to wear makeup- were often mocked by Aristophanes[5] and other famous comic writers of the time.
Seneca the Elder delivers the most compelling link ‘’ Libidinous delight in song and dance transfixes these effeminates. Braiding the hair, refining the voice till it is as caressing as a woman's, competing in bodily softness with women, beautifying themselves with filthy fineries- this is the pattern our youths set themselves''. Within this quote, there are early expressions of intense negative reactions towards certain parts of same-sex relations- with particular focus on those men that bottomed.
There is a common misconception that ancient societies stigmatised anyone that sought to bottom or had bottomed. This fundamentally misunderstands how ancient societies viewed morality and femininity. In the case of the Ancient Greeks, the role of bottoming as spoken before was linked to age- after you reached ‘manhood’ you would then top, and after a certain age (normally around 30)[6] a man was expected and obligated to find a wife and procreate for the good of the society. A man that followed this path would have bottomed, and yet he would never be called effeminate, or womanly, or mocked by the comics- it was in many respects a duty he performed, a duty to bottom, to top, to marry, to procreate. If that man were to never stop bottoming or continue to engage in sexual relations with men to the point it prevented the procreation and sustenance of a healthy marriage with a woman- this is when accusations of effeminacy start to root themselves. Being the active meant not solely active within the sexual sphere, but also extended to the moral sphere- which I have just explained above. What was immoral for the Greeks was not bottoming but being passive in your pleasures. In other words, a good man would be active in his sexual exploits as well as active in his ‘topping’ of the self- in this I mean, mastery over one’s moral duty.
How does this link to modern times?
The rise of the ‘sugar daddy’ into the zeitgeist has once again opened an age/positionality-based relationship like that expressed in Greek times. The obsession that people have- even within the queer community with finding out people’s positionality, is one that implicitly places certain judgments and expectations on that person. Positionality of ‘topping’ and ‘bottoming’ which should remain as mere acts of the matter are embedded with certain cultural and moral weighting that provide negatively imbued characteristics toward both the top and the bottom. What is interesting is that these characteristics are fluid depending upon which side of the queer-looking glass you are on. If you are on the outside looking in – on the hetero-side of the looking glass, aspects of feminisation are commonplace. You are seen as less of a ‘man’ in the ‘masculine’ sense if you allow another to penetrate you. In a similar vein however, if you are on the queer-side of the looking glass, aspects of domination are commonplace. The top is not only expected to dominate for the most part but is also supposed to play the part of the carer in sexual relationships. Important and vital concepts in the realms of sex such as aftercare are given implicit weight towards the top to see through. We must ask ourselves, why is it that we continue to feminise and infantilise (often the two terms seem interchangeable) positionality?
In this I give my opinion: The feminisation of bottoms in contemporary society is something that is intrinsically linked to patriarchal notions of domination towards woman. For too long the queer community has allowed itself to be attached to notions of straightness and emulation of heteronormative assumptions about sex, relations, and positions. In my view the feminisation of bottoms has been a patriarchal link to women and their positions in heterosexual relationships- just like the ancient’s views. Just because you are penetrated, this does not automatically confer femininity upon yourself, nor does it confer any elements of infantilisation. The growth of homonormativity within queer spaces has also promoted this feminisation process- as seen with the Roman legalisation, acceptance of monogamy, and other heteronormative practices simply seeks to mould the heterosexual framework onto a homosexual one- this inevitably leads to a feminisation process of one of the partners in such a relationship- and as mentioned previously the penetration=power model is an exceptionally simple one to cling onto. Queerness as an active process needs to reject this adoption of heterosexual practices. This rejection is the only way that such a patriarchal institution such as heterosexualism can be dismissed within queer sexual dynamics. In fact, I would seek to go further and assert that we must not simply focus on queerness in this regard, we must unite under feminist practices to rid such implicit feminisation and infantilisation amongst heterosexual relationships also – this I fear, would be a much greater task at hand. Queerness is protest. Queerness is a rejection of heteronormativity. Before we can reject, however, we must first understand.
To conclude, there is nothing inherently wrong with a sexual dynamic that happens to have dominance/submissiveness attached to positionality. It is however an issue when that becomes an implicit assumption of sexual interactions and with that assumption comes more related to the feminisation of bottoms and the infantilisation of those that enjoy being penetrated.
[1] Halperin, D.M., 1990. One hundred years of homosexuality: And other essays on Greek love. Psychology Press.
[2] Foucault, M., 1985. The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House
[3] Dover, K. J. (1989). Greek Homosexuality. Harvard University Press.
[4] Foucault, M., 1985. The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House,
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.