So it’s my great pleasure to introduce Dr Susan Aykut who is going to present a very
interesting and informative session, Palaces of Sodomy, and I don’t want to give large
introductions to everyone because you’ve got the abstracts and the bios and we do have to be
aware of time. Susan.
Good morning everyone. I love that shot. As you can see we’ve had a lot of fun putting this
together but we have had to truncate it to fit it into the time so I’m not going to muck around,
I’d better start straight away.
OK. The main purpose of this lecture is to demonstrate the historical importance of the public
bathhouses of our foundational institution where men met other men for the purpose of
having sex. What I aim to do is some very broad brushstroking over a considerable period of
time and geography to look at the similarities as well as the differences of the role of the
bathhouses in same sex encounters in the ancient Pagan worlds of Greece and Rome, the
Islamic world of the Ottoman empire and in the predominantly Christian modern worlds of
America and Australia. It charts ideas of the various understandings of homosexual
relationships with the accepted unofficial position so to speak, as well as bathhouses evolved
from being discreet meeting places to the fully open and legal sex on site venues we have
today.
Before I begin however I want to clarify a few points. I indiscriminately use the terms Gay or
Homosexual throughout, this is of course problematic as neither Greek nor Latin or Turkish
possess any one word that conveys the same semantic range as the modern concept, but I use
these terms as a convenient shorthand to link a range of different phenomena involving same
gender love and/or sexual activity. Strictly speaking in these 3 cultures, we are really
discussing bisexuality as the concept of homosexuality as a state of being does not exist or
doesn’t really exist.
I am also confining my discussion to the accepted, albeit unofficial understandings of same
sex couplings. The variables are too great to cover here. Likewise by conflating the vast
periods of time for the Ottoman Empire for instance, which existed for 6 centuries, I run the
risk of making these ideas fixed or appear fixed, or constant, for the duration of the Empire’s
cover. This of course is not the case. The past like the present is always in flux and changing
but that too is impossible to convey properly here. The geographic vastness of empires too
also means that what is happening in the centre was not always happening on the peripheries.
The best I could do here was confine my discussion and examples where possible to specific
places, that is Athens, Rome, Istanbul, New York and Sydney. So as foolhardy as this
endeavour may now sound, let’s journey to ancient Greece where for the western world at
least culture is seen to begin and where legends of male to male love abound.
Scholars are divided on the issue of whether Athenian society in the classical period
sanctioned and glorified homosexuality, or at best only half-heartedly condoned it. Without
entering into that debate suffice to say the unofficial accepted norm for same sex couplings
between men was largely defined as between and older aggressive partner, the lover Aristes,
and a young passive male, the beloved or Eriminos. Both were free-born citizens and
providing homosexual acts were conducted for fun or love, Athenian law imposed no penalty
on them.
The educational and cultural function of pederasty required by definition that the beloved boy
should be free, the lover had to make a good citizen of him whereas the slave as a lesser
being, did not belong to the world of the city and was not worthy of educating.
Terms like unnatural practices or gross indecency and the like do not appear, yet there were
laws that penalised same sex liaisons if money or gifts were transacted and it was the seller
who was penalised not the buyer.
The homoerotic art of ancient Greece is central to the visual history of homosexuality in the
west. A number of surviving artefacts mainly painted vessels, expound on the pleasures and
rituals surrounding the older mentor’s seduction of his nubile young muse. A favourite theme
depicted by artists was that of Zeus and Ganymede. Zeus’ rape of the beautiful boy
Ganymede is the arctypal homosexual Greek paradigm. In vase painting the standard
attributesof Ganymede are a rooster, a conventional homosexual love gift, and a hoop, and a
stick that served to underly his boyish innocence. For the ancient Greeks the centrality of the
younger subject was in part a matter of social decorum. Homosexual relationships between
adult men were less acceptable. This emphasis on youth is still entrenched in contemporary
hierarchies of Gay desire as are many ideas and images attributed to Greek love which has
now been adapted to modern homosexual sensibilities.
Now while it was OK for the gods to rape and accost young boys as they pleased, mere
mortals had to be far more circumspect about how they approached the object of their desire.
They could not whip out of the heavens to capture their quarry like Zeus, no mere mortals had
to do the next best thing and head for the baths. In the ancient world of Greece and Rome
which provide our first documented accounts of public bathhouses, the bath was part of a
social centre that allowed the opportunity for men to view prospective partners and bring
themselves discreetly to their attention.
The Greek prototypes of public bathing institutions developed in the classical and Hellenistic
periods between the 5th and 1st century BCE, were generally an adjunct to the gymnasium.
This complex was at the centre of where the education of male children in classical Athens
took place. The public (indistinct) and gymnasia to which the baths were attached, provided
would-be Aristes ample opportunity for looking at naked boys and bringing oneself discreetly
to a boy’s notice in the hope of eventually speaking with him. One could even suggestedly
touch up a boy while wrestling with him. Various texts allude to men in visiting an encounter
with a handsome boy who has left the gymnasium after a bath as an occasion which steps
towards homosexual seduction might be taken. What is not so clear is whether sexual
gratification of the Aristes took place at the baths or at another locale, although this image
suggested the baths were used because of the strigil which is used for removing oil, and the
sponge which are accoutrements for the bathhouse of course. And it also shows the
acceptable form of sex between males, front and intercrural – that is between the thighs.
Roman conceptions of homosexuality differed from Greeks. For the Romans pederasty was
the Greek vice. Romans perceived the love of freeborn boys practiced by the Greeks as
engendering a softness antithetical to Roman ideas of manliness. This is not to say that
Roman virility condemned homosexuality, it just meant that a Roman who was raised to
dominate did not make love to freeborn boys but to his young slaves over whom, at least
during the 1st centuries of the city’s history, he exercised complete power over. Asenica
explained losing ones virtue was a crime for the freeborn and a necessity for the slave and a
duty for the freed man.
Homosexuality then demonstrated the personal power of a citizen over slaves, and a personal
reconfirmation of his viral potency. In contrast with Greek painting where intercrural
intercourse is most common, Roman vases show almost exclusive anal intercourse between
men. The setting for this work appears to be a domestic interior but it may have been a hotel
used for such assignations and the peeking boy a servant of the establishment. Now I just
want to point out this incredible trapeze sort of exercise happening here and which is
presumably to assist the sexual exercise about to take place.
When one thinks of ancient Rome visions of giant baths or thermae often spring to mind. The
Romans were the first to attempt to provide communal bathing on a grand scale. Thermae, or
public institutions, modelled on the Greek bath gymnasium complex and comprised the
bathing block and a sports area, while the Romans definition of acceptable same sex
partnerings differed from what they considered the Greeks vice, the bath nevertheless
provided similar opportunities for Roman men to view and meet partners as had the Greek
baths for Greeks.
This 19th century reconstruction of the Diocletian baths give an idea of the size of the baths
built by Romans. It had a capacity for 6,000 bathers. Such mass bathing could only have
been possible with the significant advances in Greek and early Roman technology.
The Roman baths spread far and wide going wherever the Roman Empire went. But like all
empires it finally had its day. The destruction of Rome and its baths occurred quickly.
Plagues swept over the Italian boot, debilitating conflicts rocked the throne, marauding
barbarians struck savage blows, the Roman Empire rotted. The baths became empty shells
and the cathedrals of the flesh, as Christians called them, simply disappeared.
From a Christian point of view which had become the official religion of Rome in the 4th
century AD, this was not seen as a great loss. The process of denouncing the immorality of
communal bathing and public nudity began early in the Christian world. Nevertheless mixed
bathing and nudity in greatly modified bathhouses remained customary in Europe until the
late Middle Ages. Bathing when practiced, became strictly private.
By the end of the Middle Ages repeated outbreaks of the plague contributed to the reputation
of the bath as unhealthy but distaste turned to dread through the fear of another disease,
syphilis. Syphilis was noticed in Europe at the end of the 15th century. The combination of
moral and health concerns affected bathhouses and customs in Europe for the next 3
centuries. By the Renaissance communal baths virtually ceased to exist and communal baths
as such did not really return until the 19th century.
But while bathhouses were shut down in Europe they continued to proliferate in the Islamic
world as they were fundamental institutions for the Islamic faith. Before long the bath
became deeply associated with Turkey. The rise of Ottoman power and the encroachment
into Europe gave rise to new fears. Ways of denigrating Islam as alien seeped into the
political rhetoric. Communal baths and bathing were denounced. They were against the
Christian notion of spirituality achieved through the negation of the body and the sense.
Religious moral condemnation capitalised on popular fears that bathhouses spread diseases
and sinfulness of Eastern baths and bathing became integral to a Western Christian polemic.
To further acculturate Europeans against the Muslim enemy, Europe’s moral superiority was
also asserted by decrying the sodomite practices believed prevalent in Islamic states. As a
consequence a vast Western literature exists condemning the supposedly rampant homosexual
practices of Eastern males. Most of the stories locate male homosexuality in places other than
the baths until the 19th century when people like the English poet, Lord Byron, described the
Turkish bath as a marble paradise of sherbet and sodomy, a title I have paraphrased for the
title of this lecture. Byron however only alludes to what might have been a personal
experience of such things.
“I see not much difference between ourselves and the Turks save that in England the viruses
in fashion are whoring and drinking. In Turkey sodomy and smoking. We prefer a girl and
the bottle, they a pipe and a (indistinct). They are a sensible people”.
More explicit on the subject was the French author, Gustav Flaubert who openly sought out
liaisons with bath boys in Cairo. In letters to his friends and former French mistress, Flaubert
clearly saw partaking in this activity as an acceptable, even expected behaviour, and
considered it part of his travel education and duty.
“Travelling as we are for vocational purposes and charged with a mission by the Government,
we have considered it our duty to indulge in this form as ejaculation. So far the occasion has
not presented itself. We continue to seek it however. It’s at the baths that such things take
place. You reserve the bath for yourself and you skewer your lad in one of the rooms. Oh be
informed furthermore that all the bath boys are (indistinct)”.
Of course France had decriminalised sodomy in 1791 whereas the English in the early
decades of the 19th century were still hanging sodomites hence people like Byron needed to be
more circumspect. I suspect that the lack of earlier references by Western text to same sex
male activity in the baths was in part so that authors avoided being implicated in such
practices. But there are however a number of Ottoman sources dealing with male
homosexuality in the baths, and as luck would have it some of these came to light after the
release of the Turkish Italian co-produced Hamam, which means Turkish bath, which was
released in Turkey in 1997. This film was screened in Melbourne at Melbourne’s Queer
Festival a couple of years ago. Some of you might have seen it and it’s also been on SBS a
few times.
As part of its story line a homosexual relationship develops between a Turkish youth and a
married Italian architect who has travelled to Istanbul to claim an inheritance. The
inheritance is an old hamam left to him by his aunt who had come to Istanbul 30 years before.
In the hamam which the two men decide to restore and reopen, the lovers meet. By linking
homosexual activity to the hamam, this film placed the subject back on the local as well as
tourist agenda. The international Gay guide Spartacus listed in its 1997 catalogue some
hamams located in touristy parts of Istanbul as places where Gay action was possible.
Although the film won an award in a regional film festival, it created quite a furore in Turkey
particularly amongst members of the Istanbul bathhouse owners association who are pictured
here. The president of this association, and he is the one in the sort of mayoral robes in the
middle, in fact he gave me this photograph, grabbing his 5 minutes of fame appeared
regularly on TV and in the press denouncing this film and saying that no such thing took
place in Turkish baths. As a consequence articles began appearing in the press supplying
historical evidence saying that it most certainly did.
This illustration called a famous Turkish bath masseur, is from an 18th century manuscript
called the Hubanname, or the Book of Beauties, and it depicts a bath attendant. He is
portrayed as a narrow-waisted youth an esteemed feature singled out by connoisseurs of
beauties, fleshy mounds on his chest suggested he is still pubescent and his head is shaved
except for the crown of happiness that will draw the wearer into paradise. Now nearly every
famous divan poet wrote some poems dedicated and describing beautiful telux.
One manuscript called Book of Heart Easing Masseurs written in 1686, describes and
discusses in detail the homosexual practices of a number of the more famous bath attendants
known to the author. They provide important information on their role in the bathhouse as
well as homosexual practices in Ottoman society. These portraits give us an insight into the
arbitrariness of how and why these bath attendants joined the hamam and how their looks and
performances made them famous. One of the telux described is Yemenege Bally, who had
been a shoemaker’s apprentice until one night he was ambushed on his way home by a group
of men, and I quote “who fucked his arse until the dawn”. Yemenege Bally was eventually
rescued by the police but because the violation had been made public he was branded with a
mark identifying him as a homosexual. Unable to return to his former employment,
Yemenege Bally found the only place he could get work at was the Great Turkish Bath in
Papani. Within a short time of being employed here Yemenege Bally became famous,
presumably for his good looks. He is described thus;
“His hair is hyacinth, his dimple is like a rose, his look are an executioner’s looks, his tallness
is like a boxwood tree, his arse is like a crystal ball, his navel is a flash of light”.
As with the Greek conception, an age-stratified homosexuality seemed the most commonly
accepted variant. In Ottoman times and in turkey today, as it was in ancient Greece and
Rome, generally only the passive participant is regarded as homosexual. The man woman
polarity in the form of man youth is preserved. There is a crucial distinction between
homosexuality as a state of being and homosexuality as an activity. Sexual release for men
was regarded as necessary and legitimate no matter how it was obtained. For the Ottomans it
would seem sexual acts were not at issue providing commitment to family remained
undisturbed and discretion was observed. Individual desires which did not conform to the
Islamic ideal could be accommodated and yet the overarching social system was insulated
from direct challenge. So while sodomy is illegal in Muslim states that have instituted Sharia
or religious law, attraction between males appear to have been accepted and considered as
normal in Islamic cultures in a way it has rarely if ever had in Judeo-Christian ones.
Sodomy was considered the horrible sin not be named among Christians and the punishment
for those engaging in such acts was severe as these next two illustrations demonstrate. The
first one is sodomites being burned at the stake, and this is a 15th century engraving from
northern Europe, but equally horrible punishments were devised by Christians invading other
cultures too. The 2nd image depicts native sodomites being eaten alive by dogs and this is in
Central America. This is a 16th century work. While penalties became less savage in the
Christian world when bathhouses made their appearance in America in the late 19 th century,
condemnation of homosexuality was still very much the order of the day.
Now I want to jump ahead to the beginning of the 20th century. For the next part of this
discussion we’ll focus on bathhouses in New York, partly because the bathhouses that
operated there are the best documented and also because New York is one of the first places
to open exclusively gay bathhouses.
Of the baths operating in New York in the late 19th and early 20th century, men seeking sex
with other men preferred the Turkish, Russian and electric vapour baths established by
entrepreneurs cashing in on the European fashion for them. This was because many of them
were kept open 24 hours a day because they were too expensive to cool down and heat up
again. Consequently they were much patronised during the all night hours and early morning
ones. Moreover baths of this type provided each client a separate dressing room usually with
a couch that afforded the necessary privacy for men to have sex with each other. By the
1920s 57 of these baths operated in Manhattan, some were gay tolerant, that is they were open
to straight men and ignoring of gay activity, and some were gay bars which actively excluded
non-gays.
One of the great appeals about bathhouses for gay men was their relative safety compared to
other public places used for sex, such as parks and toilets. Nevertheless although gay men
were less likely to get bashed up or blackmailed in a bathhouse, they were not legal and still
risky to use. The earliest recorded raid of a gay bathhouse was in 1903 at the Ariston. 12
men were brought to trial on sodomy charges and it’s sobering to recollect that 7 of these men
received sentences from 4-20 years in prison.
The Everard Turkish Baths, sometimes referred to as the Everhard Baths, was originally a
church, and it was converted into a bathhouse in 1888 and served as a homosexual meeting
place for nearly a century. It was the longest running gay-oriented business in New York
City. Because the Everard was rumoured to have been owned by the Police Athletic League
it had a reputation as being safe from police harassment. Nevertheless it was constantly
raided as well, well not constantly.
This became another legendary bath in Manhattan. It was opened as a Jewish bathhouse but
became popular with gays and was used by both communities quite happily. The patrons
were basically into hard core S & M.
The only bath that catered for black African American men was this bath in Harlem called the
Mt Morris baths.
There is a change that comes through which I had charted through the artworks but I won’t
but Tom Finland whose works you will probably be very aware of really creates the break
with the historic past of the efeebe or effeminate and here you have really the beginnings of
the sort of the Village People type stuff and here we have Club San Francisco or this was a
chain of bathhouses than ran across America and I think there was actually over half a million
card carrying members to this club so very important breakthrough in the Gay world, then we
have of course Bette Midler who makes her debut in the Continental Baths in New York. So
here we have this whole change about bathhouses where the straight community actually go
to them for entertainment. They also go there to get people to vote and actually drum up
people to be joining them.
Then we come to Australia. Now this is the bit that I am still doing a lot of research on, this
is one of the earliest Turkish baths in Australia. It’s the 2 nd one actually, there was one in
Sydney in 1859, this one was opened in 1860. Now there is some evidence. There is a
wonderful case study in Havelock Ellis’ groundbreaking book, The Psychology of Sex, that
actually records a case study of a man who reports having homosexual overtures being made
to him in a Turkish bath in Sydney, which I am pretty sure is this next bath, Wis Gils Turkish
Bath which is in Oxford Street of course and he had a hairdressing business. I just love this
character he’s fantastic. But there are also Turkish baths at the Bondi pavilion which were
also used or known as a gay sort of beat. Gosh I’ve really lost the plot here. There was
evidence but not much, there is very little recorded where the American history of bathhouses
is very well documented, the Australian ones aren’t so I am putting out a bit of a plea as a
researcher to try and get people to come forward with any information or sources and links
that they might have.
Now the big difference. The baths in Australia were fairly much the same or the
contemporary sex on site saunas that we have today were pretty much the same as those in
America and they always fascinated me the way they are set up to recreate some of the illegal
beats. You know you have the glory holes that recreate the public toilets, you have the mazes
that recreate the bushes and park settings etc but one big difference about the baths in
Australia to the ones in America was they were not shut down during the HIV AIDS panic.
You know Australia actually used the bathhouses very constructively to educate people about
safe sex whereas in America there was this nearly categoric shut down throughout the States
and of course you know some of our artists as is David McDiarmid’s work shows some of the
first images pro-joy images of HIV positive gay men.
So to briefly sum up. Although historically baths are seen to be important places to provide a
venue for men seeking sex with other men from discreet meeting places in past societies, they
evolved in the 20th century into some of the first exclusively gay commercial spaces.
Nevertheless while bathhouses have in modern times had an important role in fostering gay
pride and politicising gay communities, they are also places that remind us of the relative
freedom and acceptance of gay or bisexual people is fragile as the controversy over AIDS that
erupted in the 80s demonstrated only too clearly. However despite the chequered history of
public bathhouses in the Christian Western world where it has been subjected to closure
because of diseases, be it plaque, syphilis or AIDS, fortunately its resilience is such that they
eventually reopen to offer their pleasures.
“Here you are not wicked for feeling lust, here you can look freely at what you desire, get
aroused and shoot a load. Most important here you can bring out into the open a part of you
that is completely real but doesn’t usually get out to come out and play”
Thank you so much Phillip and Susan for significant research and I think the kind of research
that has long been hidden and left behind and we need to do it. It’s cross-cultural, it’s
historical and really puts films like Troy and Alexander from Hollywood into a trashy light I
think, so thank you so much, and please see Susan and Phillip after…..