Sodomite - definition

[Holmes]

My boyfriend said yesterday that only receiving partner in anal sex is a sodomite. It's not a definition I've heard before. Anyone else heard this strict definition? Given sodomy laws have prohibited all sorts of sexual relations between men, it does seem a little unlikely to me, as it does given what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the angels in Genesis.

[British Lad]

I just looking it up and the easyest diffionicion is a guy who is the resepive parter of anything up the butt.

[Ben]

Sodomy is traditionally used to describe anal sex, but it kind of branches out to all kinds of sex other than the penis in vagina type sometimes.
But if someone was to say "He sodomised me/I was sodomised", they would be referring to (probably unwanted) anal sex.

[Holmes]

Originally Posted by British Lad

I just looking it up and the easyest diffionicion is a guy who is the resepive parter of anything up the butt.

Bottom was the term I was looking for. So if you found that too, he was right. Where did you find that? I couldn't find it in the first few results here.

As far as I am aware, a sodomite is commonly used to mean someone who engages in anal sex with a person of the same sex. Technically though, I think it is anyone who engages in oral or anal sex. I have never heard of it meaning only the person receiving anal sex.

[IsItSo]

Your boyfriend is wrong. Both guys are prosecuted under sodomy laws.

In the ancient world, homosexual sex was generally only shameful for the receptive partner. It was considered incredibly shameful for a man to take the position of a woman in sex. In the Roman Empire homosexuality was only accepted if the receiving partner wasn't a Roman citizen or was a slave.

In the time of Sodom, conquering armies would often rape the conquered men as an act of shaming them.

But that's history. I think 'sodomite' as it has been used generally refers to both people.

To me, a 'sodomite' is someone who is inhospitable as that was the actual sin of sodom.

[Holmes]

Originally Posted by LostandFound

To me, a 'sodomite' is someone who is inhospitable as that was the actual sin of sodom.

They were being inhospitable by trying to rape them, so I think inhospitable in this case is about more than just not inviting your new neighbours over for tea and cake. A sort of aggressive inhospitality.

Yeah, I knew about the distinctions in the ancient world, but hadn't heard it applied to the term sodomite before. Given the Biblical injunction in Leviticus, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination", seems to be against it altogether, I doubt they'd have made the distinction.

I'll quiz him on it and might post up if he has any historic backing to this.

[Beachboi92]

sodomy was actually never a word in the bible and tech never was meant to mean anal anything. A sodomite is a person who lived in sodom during biblical times......

[No One]

Originally Posted by Holmes

They were being inhospitable by trying to rape them...

That actually isn't necessarily true.

The original translations from the Hebrew text use the word "Relations" which in ancient time, did not necessarily mean sex. In fact, it normally wasn't used in that way at all. It is only through the interpretation of those who read it later, that is became sex.

We cannot say with any certainty that the original author meant sex.

Originally Posted by Holmes

They were being inhospitable by trying to rape them, so I think inhospitable in this case is about more than just not inviting your new neighbours over for tea and cake. A sort of aggressive inhospitality.

Yeah, I would agree. Leviticus is also a tricky one from what I understand, most ancient cultures would have been against homosexuality as we understand it now (the Greeks only believed it was alright if it were between an older man and a young boy and Romans between a Roman citizen and a non-citizen). Most ancient cultures saw sex differently than we do now and it's really difficult to apply ancient morals to modern homosexuality. I've heard many say that homosexuality as we know it has never existed in history before the 20th century, it's an entirely new thing.

[Holmes]

Originally Posted by No One

That actually isn't necessarily true.

The original translations from the Hebrew text use the word "Relations" which in ancient time, did not necessarily mean sex. In fact, it normally wasn't used in that way at all. It is only through the interpretation of those who read it later, that is became sex.

We cannot say with any certainty that the original author meant sex.

Given that he offers his two daughters instead, and stresses their virginity, makes sex at least a plausible understanding of what they were looking on. I'm not saying we can say absolutely that was what was meant, but I do think it more than likely.

Originally Posted by LostandFound

I've heard many say that homosexuality as we know it has never existed in history before the 20th century, it's an entirely new thing.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Attitudes to homosexuality have differed across culture and ages, and are changing over the course of our lifetimes. So the culture and atmosphere in which homosexual relations occur might vary. But homosexuality, meaning two members of the same sex in a romantic and sexual relationship is not a new thing. When there were whispers in the English courts of Edward II or James I about their male favourites, it was not too different a phenomenon from similar instances in the 20th century.

[Jeremy]

In regards to Sodomy Laws, "sodomy" in the law books referred to oral sex as well anal sex between two consenting adults (aimed at homosexuality) as exemplified in the infamous case of Bowers vs. Hardwick, where Hardwick and his partner were NOT partaking in anal intercourse yet were still arrested for sodomy.