Homosexuality and Cross-Dressing

I chose to focus this blog on the article by Laura A. Lewis titled “From Sodomy to Superstitution: The Active Pathic and Bodily Transgressions in New Spain.” Homosexuality and our recent discussions of the cases presented by Dr. Black in class have been quite interesting to me, and so I really wanted to read more about similar accounts, hence my focus on Lewis. Although Lewis dove into many topics, I found myself drawn to the female cross-dressing cases. According to Lewis, male homosexuality was punishable  by death, but the stereotypical comparison to “sodomites” as “passive” or “acting like women” and even dressing like one were not in and of themselves punishable by death. However, I couldn’t help but notice how much male homosexuality was condemned just by it being an act of feminization of men. Of course, that would be looked down upon for a man to have female characteristics, and I think we all can agree that this idea was consistent with colonial times, as women were usually subordinate.

On the other hand, Lewis provides accounts of females who dressed as men.  She also notes a difference here in that females who dressed and acted like men were not immediately thought of as homosexual, unlike men who dressed as women. She goes on to say that this goes back to females being subordinate, so to become more like a man, although deviating from gender norms, a woman wasn’t looked down upon taking up male characteristics. I think that these notions are still around today! I would argue that women have much more fluidity when it comes to dressing more masculine or taking up masculine characteristics/interests. The question for me is, although one could argue that this is still because feminine qualities are subordinate to masculine ones, isn’t the gap between acting more feminine or masculine less deviant than colonial Spain? I would think so, however, as a female, I’m still pretty confident that I could get away with dressing more masculine, then let’s say, my brother dressing feminine. These gender roles of dress and their links to homosexuality seem to have some deep historical roots that we are learning from Lewis’ and others case studies.

Lewis also mentions the church attire, which consisted of capes and cloaks, etc. This style of dress seems much more androgynous, although there were distinctions between male and female. I find this interesting considering that the church was so strict and very concerned with sexual practices and gender roles among society, even down to dress. Regardless, I can say with confidence that I am glad to be a part of a time where fluidity among sexual preferences and practices is much less condemned than previous ones. I can’t imagine the fear instilled in those by the church who were conducting these acts, in particular homosexual ones, considering their very lives were at stake.