On Passivity and Virginal Readings…

Four-and-twenty Highland men
Came from the Carron side
To steal away Eppie Morrie
Cause she wouldn’t be a bride, a bride
She wouldn’t be a bride

They’ve taken Eppie Morrie
And a horse they’ve bound her on
And they’re away to Carron side
As fast as horse could gang, could gang
As fast as horse could gang

Haud away from me, Willie
Haud away from me
There’s not a man in all Strathdon
Shall wedded be by me, by me
Shall wedded be by me

Then mass was sung and bells were rung
And they’re away to bed
And Willie and Eppie Morrie
In one bed they were laid, were laid
In one bed they were laid

He’s kissed her on the lily breast
And held her shoulders twa
But aye she gat and aye she spat
And turned to the wa’, the wa’
And turned to the wa’

They wrestled there all through the night
Before the break of day
But aye she gat and aye she spat
But he could not stretch her spey,
He could not stretch her spey

Haud away from me, Willie,
Haud away from me
There’s not a man in all Strathdon
Shall wedded be by me, by me
Shall wedded be by me

Then early in the morning
Before the light of day
In came the maid of Scallater
In gown and shirt alone, alone
In a gown and shirt alone

Get up, get up, young woman
And take a drink with me
You might have called me maiden
For I’m as whole as thee, as thee
For I’m as whole as thee.

Then in there came young Breadalbane
With a pistol on his side
O, come away, Eppie Morrie
And I’ll make you my bride, my bride
And I’ll make you my bride

Go get to me a horse, Willie
Get it like a man
And send me back to my mother
A maiden as I came, I came
A maiden as I came

Sex and Conquest was a strange book. Trexler, came off to me (certainly, no pun intended) as a very excited writer. I cannot remember when I have seen so many exclamation points in a given book. While his organization seems fairly clear, the argument seems to be a little muddled. Exactly what is he trying to prove? I get that he is analyzing the role of the berdache as a focus for his study of the sexuality of the Spanish conquest and he definitely makes some interesting (and often blunt) points about this role. His analysis is quite skillful in an acrobatic and flexible sort of way (again, no pun intended), but I’m not sure that, at this point anyway, that I’m entirely convinced. Convinced of what you might ask? There, at least to my mind, seems to be a subtext throughout challenging modern and often uncritically inherited notions of gender and, at least for him, its intrinsic partner sexuality. And there often are unveiled references to modern practices which emulate aspects of conquest society in the regions he discusses. This is fine and probably needs to be shaken up often, but I’m not sure what it adds to his book, especially since it is mixed in throughout. In his excitement to make a point about sexuality and all its social implications, he sometimes left me a sentence behind, a passive reader. I’m glad for the opportunity to read the book, as I am with any work that seriously treats violence and gives me a deeper, more penetrating understanding of its role in societies, and now only hope that I can get some of it out of my head….

From Moon Goddesses to Virgins seemed to be a compliment to Sex and Conquest. Whereas Trexler emphasized the European approach to sexuality in the Americas, Sigal tries to tease out the ways in which sexuality was experienced by the Maya both before and after Spanish authorities tried to change sexualized practices. This book was my first experience with psycho-analytic thought used in a historical setting and so I am not quite sure what to make of it. I know that I thought Trexler’s argument was complicated, but it was nothing compared to that if Sigal. This book also came off more clinical than Trexler. I don’t know if it was the different style or simply the vocabulary, but Sigal’s argument definitely seemed more technical and theory driven than that of Trexler. It’s nice, in a way, to see someone who is able to break with the “let’s use a theory of modern western psychology” on a non-western society, but being so different also means being less intelligible. It could be that I simply don’t get what Sigal is trying to do here because my mind is so inscribed with Freudian conceptions of sexuality, but the latter part of the book seemed paradoxically the most direct, but also the most confusing. A non-gendered phallo-centric world is certainly not something I have any familiarity with and in this respect, it was a good read.

Perhaps the best result of these readings was that the way I think about sexuality will never be the same. I will never look at a person bent over the same way after reading Trexler. At the same time I think that Sigal’s book might require another go-through at some (indeterminate) time in the future. Together these books give it to you both ways: sex as a mechanism for control and sex as an experience of control and subversion.