Kelsey Navin
December 18, 2012
History 103
Section 001
The History of Sexual Inversion
Sexual inversion was the diagnosis placed upon any individual that would be modernly
referred to as homosexual. Sexual inversion was originally a strictly mental disorder, nothing
physical, and was treated as such. Patients diagnosed with sexual inversion were forced into
physical, as well as mental punishments whenever a homosexual thought crossed their minds.
With current medical advances, science has uncovered more physical and biological causes for
“sexual inversion,” despite this diagnosis no longer being considered a mental illness any longer.
Why have psychologists accepted these biological causes, and abandoned treatment of those with
homosexual desires or tendencies?
Sexual inversion was not specifically diagnosed in homosexuals, but also in
heterosexuals that were seen to have been too feminine or masculine for their gender, be it male
or female respectively. This brings to question, what would form the basis for “too feminine” or
“too masculine?” Who was given the authority to make such decisions? Was the want to work,
instead of being solely a housewife and mother, a true reason for diagnosing a woman as an
“invert” and forcing her into therapy?
In the late 1890’s, English psychologist Havelock Ellis collaborated with English poet
and literary critic John Addington Symonds in a study of sexual inverts that eventually lead to
their book, Sexual Inversion, published in April 1897. Sexual Inversion, which was the first
English medical publication on homosexuality, was written with the objective to portray sexual
inverts as normal people, rather than miscreants or degenerates (“Sexual Inversion”). The idea
that sexual inverts were psychologically unstable was the common belief in this time period.
Symonds had many connections, and used those connections in order to gather 33 cases of sexual
inverts. These cases were later used as supporting evidence in Sexual Inversion to prove their
belief that normal people could be attracted to the same sex without it being a psychological
disorder.
Although Ellis and Symonds are most well known for their work on sexual inversion,
they were certainly not the first of their kind. In the 1870’s, Italian psychologist Arrigo Tamassia
to the medical professionals around him, sprouting their interest in the subject two decades
before Ellis and Symonds were able to publish their textbook. As early as the mid 1880’s, sexual
inversion was seen as a distinct mental disorder, rather than a symptom of a bigger or broader
disorder (“Female Sexual Inversion” 43). While many of the doctors and researchers were
studying solely male homosexuality under the umbrella of sexual inversion, Italy had taken an
extra step. Two pioneers in the field, Giovanni Dall’Orto and Nerina Milletti, had taken it upon
themselves to also study same-sex relations between women, lesbianism (“Female Sexual
Inversion” 44). These two, along with other medical writers in Italy, became very well versed in
the specifics of lesbianism.
Different cultures have different ideas of what is right and wrong, what is good and evil,
what is acceptable and what should be punished. Sexual inversion was nowhere if not under the
microscope of this scrutiny among most cultures. One particular culture, the Azande people in
Sudan around the 1930’s, was certainly no exception. It was common practice for the Zande men
to become warriors. These warriors were separated into two companies, one of married men and
the other of bachelors. Each company had their own set of duties and services to be rendered. For
the purposes of this paper, the company of married men plays no farther part. However, the
company of bachelors forms the biggest example of controversial sexual inversion that I have
come across in my research. These bachelors would spend so much of their time together,
without access to women in order to find wives, that it became common and socially accepted
for the warriors to take on boy-wives (Evans-Pritchard 1429).
These “marriages” were looked at mostly as a sexual release, a way for the warriors to
satisfy their needs without committing adultery with another man’s wife. The “boys” or “wives”
of the marriage would be just that, a wife to the “husband.” They would perform all wifely
duties, including sharing a bed at night, beyond coitus. These marriages were looked at no
differently than any other legally bound marriage, since that is exactly what they were, though
they were also temporary. The husband was required to pay a dowry, as well as perform services,
to the family of his new “wife,” and if found to be a suitable son-in-law, it was common for the
father of the “wife” to trade his daughter for son, once his son was considered enough of a man
to find his own wife. If the husband found his boy-wife to be committing adultery with another
man, he could act upon in the same way male-female adultery would be punished (EvansPritchard 1429).
One of the warriors, when asked why these homosexual relationships occurred,
responded with the following:
“What man would prefer a boy to a woman? A man would be a fool to do so. The love of
boys arose from a lack of women.” (Evans-Pritchard 1429)
This comment was made in regards to the lack of “marriageable” women these warriors were
permitted access to. Most women of marrying age were kept in houses close to the court, not
anywhere near the poor bachelor warriors. Not only were these warriors competing against each
other for very few suitable women, they were also fighting against the polygamous traditions,
which strongly favored the more wealthy of the Azande.
The polygamous marriages brought about another side of sexual inversion for the
Azande. When one man had many wives, it meant that each wife had to suffer sexually; he
simply could not keep each of the wives satisfied as a man with one wife could. This brought
suspicions of lesbianism amongst the wives, which was completely intolerable in this culture.
Not only was lesbianism frowned upon, it was viewed as adultery, and any women caught in the
act could be punished by death (Evans-Pritchard 1431). It was said that once a woman partook in
homosexual acts with another woman, that she would no longer obey her husband. She would
never go back to be dominated by the husband, only submitting to his needs, since she had found
a way to satisfy hers without him (Evans-Pritchard 1432). The wives would find ways to get
their husband’s approval however. A tradition called bagburu was one of friendship between
wives in this polygamous culture. One wife would present a gift to another, and the recipient
would present a return gift. After this initial exchange, these wives were essentially now best
friends. They would help each other with daily tasks, provide gifts to one another, accompany
one another whenever and to wherever (Evans-Pritchard 1432).
Zande women would seek permission from their husbands to form this bond with their
fellow wives, reluctantly the husband would agree out of fear that they would form a lesbian
relationship if denied the bagburu. These women would abuse this ritual, and shape fruits or
vegetables into phallic objects to be used on one another in secrecy (Evans-Pritchard 1432). It
was also common practice for husbands to find refuge in male sex slaves when it was
unsanctified to lay with one of their wives. One such occasion was the night before the husband
went to consult the poison oracle (Evans-Pritchard 1430). On these nights, it was acceptable for
the husband to lay with a boy without it being considered adultery. If ever these occurrences
were to become habitual, despite the man having many wives, this would be looked at as taboo,
possible even begin to border on psychological worry. This was the only time when male-male
homosexual relations were looked at in any negative light, with one large unwritten rule. These
men were never to have any anal penetration. They would only have the friction between the
boy-wife’s thighs to provide them the sexual satisfaction they yearned for (Evans-Pritchard
1430). Luckily, in post European Sudan, this entire practice of boy-wives and warrior marriages
has ended.
Sexual inversion, however merely referred to as homosexuality now, is still looked at as a
“curable” trait. As Marc Andre Raffalovich addresses in his work, most common ways of
“curing” homosexuals of their inversion are truly only increasing the problem. Raffalovich states
that forcing homosexuals into a heterosexual marriage will not make them desire their wife, but
rather would only make the homosexual a hypocrite and an unfit father (33). Instead, parents of
“congenital inverts” should raise their children to be contingent, chaste, to know duty and
sobriety, to understand that “the realizations of their desires are not of this world” (Raffalovich
34). Though he admits that causes for attraction to the same sex in inverts is about as understood
(or not) as the attraction to the opposite sex in heterosexuals, Raffalovich also speaks of how
heterosexuals could be converted into learned inverts (35). Congenital inverts are born with
homosexual tendencies, whereas learned inverts are usually seduced by a failed attempt to “cure”
a congenital invert (35).
Modern biological research has been able to develop an impressive amount of
experimental data that shows how biology plays a large role in determining sexual orientation,
whether it is hetero or homosexuality (Jannini et al 3246). Research performed on twins, both
monozygotic and dizygotic, have shown that there are genetic, autoimmune, and neurohormonal
factors that go into determining sexual orientation. Some genetic research has even shown that
there are genes that influence this development, however molecular research has been unable to
narrow down the specific gene as late as 2010 (Jannini et al 3246).
Science has not given up on coming to a complete, biological, molecular, understanding
of homosexuality. Society has moved on from the morals and customs of the Azande, to the
point where Americans have begun to form true, legal, homosexual marriages, not merely for
sexual gain or apprenticeship. Although these marriages are only legal in a few states so far, they
are still viewed as permanent relationships, and treated as such. When science finally decides
what factor it is that determines homosexual over heterosexual, society might be able to drop the
controversy of homosexuality. Until then however, supporters must keep supporting, just as
those who do not support will continue to not support. I am simply happy to be able to state that
homosexuality, lesbianism included, is no longer considered a mental disorder in itself, nor
symptom of any others.
Works Cited
Beccalossi, Chiara. Female Sexual Inversion : Same-Sex Desires in Italian and British Sexology,
C. 1870-1920. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 26 Oct, 2011. Print. Genders and Sexualities in
History.
Beccalossi, Chiara. "Sexual Inversion: A Critical Edition." Social History of Medicine 22.1
(2009): 211-12. Penn State Secure Login:. 21 Feb. 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. "Sexual Inversion among the Azande." Penn State Secure Login:. Wiley
on Behalf of the American Anthropological Association, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
Jannini, Emmanuele A., MD, Ray Blanchard, PhD, Andrea Camperio-Ciani, PhD, and John
Bancroft, MD. "Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture?jsm_2024 3245." The Journal of Sexual
Medicine Controversies in Sexual Medicine 7.10 (2010): 3245-253. Penn State Secure Login:. 4
Oct. 2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
Raffalovich, Marc Andre. "Uranism, Congenital Sexual Inversion." Journal of Comparative
Neurology 5.1 (n.d.): 33-65. Penn State Secure Login:. Wiley, 7 Oct. 2004. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.