Gay Blades(?)

[Coastie04]

I know the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) defines sodomy very loosely, so that sodomy does not necessarily mean buggery, or even a same-sex sexual relation. Currently, the article for sodomy reads as follows:

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

a: Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

b: Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So, even in cases of sodomy, it isn't necessarily gay. I don't know what the standard was in England historically, maybe Foxe can enlighten me, but if it's similar to today's definition, getting a bit too friendly with the ship's cat would be sodomy as well (and, I might add, disgusting).

Coastie

[dasNdanger]

maybe Foxe can enlighten me, but if it's similar to today's definition, getting a bit too friendly with the ship's cat would be sodomy as well (and, I might add, disgusting).

Coastie

Well, I can't speak for Foxe...but I can for my brother, who was a commercial fisherman for many a year. He told us that seagulls were occasionally molested by the odd fisherman or two...which, of course, grossed us all out. He, fortunately, wasn't found of sea birds...

It sounds as if they used sodomy as a blanket offense to cover bestiality, homosexuality, and 'unnatural' relations with a woman. I guess it was easier than defining each practice.

das

[greenighs]

Gramercy to Foxe and Caraccioli fer catching me grammatical faux pas regarding B.R. Burg's book, Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition.  I mistakenly used the word 'scholarly' when I referred to it.  I meant to have said 'academic' to imply that Professor Burg was an academic himself and the book was published by New York University Press.

I honestly found it a slow, unexciting read; however, for those interested in the subject, I would still recommend it as a resource.

This has been a very interesting topic and I have enjoyed reading mates' responses.

Have ye read this one? Looks interesting ....

Rum, Sodomy and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity

Hello Sailor! The Hidden History of Gay Life at Sea

(Not restricted to pirates, but looks like a fun read!)

[CaptainCiaran]

Aye, have read the 'Rum, Sodomy..' book, but not heard of the 'Hello Sailor' one. Will check it out! Gramercy, greenighs.

[Fox]

I haven't read either of them, but just looking at what others have said:

About "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash..."

"Turley shows the ways in which sodomy and piracy are inextricable from the cultural imagination of the eighteenth century and, in doing so, encourages us to rethink not only pirate history, but the history of sexuality as well." -George E. Haggerty

I don't know what Turley's sources are, but if he's trying to show that piracy and sodomy of the 18thc were inextricably linked then I have doubts about the reliability and credibility of the book

"Hello Sailor" looks a little better: this, for example, is an endorsement which impresses me:

"…meticulously researched, cogently argued work of high scholarship…producing an endlessly fascinating and finely nuanced examination of the culture and mores of homosexuality afloat…This book is greatly to be commended." Dr Campbell McMurray OBE, Director, Royal Naval Museum

However, from the description of the book it should be pointed out that it seems to basically be a history of gay cabin staff on cruise liners. Albeit, apparently, a good one.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Ineresting topic... but not my cup of tea.

I will say this...

When I lived in the UK, there was an excellent show on TV about homosexuals in the 18th century. All the "coffee houses" where the upper classes would go and dress up like females and and do what they *do* (this included re-enacting fake births).

There seemed to be a tolarance up to a point. I think they called them

Molly Houses.

(I just watched the show for the costumes... they were awesome..... no really!)

[dasNdanger]

Hey, it's not really my cuppa, either - but I like to have my facts straight when people go off on this subject...

Does anyone know anything about this: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/bi...1717238,00.html

Onesies gave me the link, and said it sounded right up my alley...LOL, I shouldn't have told her about this thread...

das

[Fox]

Interesting, but the memoirs of Louis le Golif are widely accepted as being fake :)

[dasNdanger]

Interesting, but the memoirs of Louis le Golif are widely accepted as being fake  :)

Ah...so we can call it A Million Little Piratical Pieces??? Maybe Oprah will feature it on her show someday...

You know, I'm sure buggery happened...perhaps even more than is documented. (I use the term buggery specifically to differentiate between straight men who use other men as substitute women, and gay men who prefer male relations.) Rock Hudson, it's been reported, turned to buggery while in the navy to slake his lust between ports, and that during a time when such activity was quite taboo. Whether he discover at that time that he was gay, or if it something he always leaned towards, no one will really know. Of course, that's not to say that every man, or the majority of men, would follow his course...and by the looks of factual information provided, it doesn't seem that shipboard buggery was as widespread as some moderns would like us to believe. It could be that buggery laws aboard ship were purposely harsh in order to prevent chaos. As someone said earlier - what would happen to a poor fella if everyone found out he was willing to be their best girlfriend for a night? It's also interesting that, in the Navy, there were also strong laws against cursing and spitting on deck...something that, in today's society, might seem ridiculous (esp. to the guy who swears and spits on the sidewalk), but served a very important purpose aboard ship. Of course, that's the Navy, and pirates had a different set of guidelines. In one book (not sure of it's accuracy) it states part of Robert's articles, which say: "No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man shall be found seducing any of the latter sex and carrying her to sea in disguise he shall suffer death."

Now, if they had such strong rules against having a woman aboard (in this case it might be for a sexual companion at sea), I can imagine that the same would hold true of a man who was willing to engage in buggery. The problems (fights, loyalty issues, distractions) it would cause would be greater than the pleasures that could be had. In the same code there's a prohibition against gambling with dice or cards...another potential hazard aboard ship, especially if cheating was suspected. So, the articles aboard a pirate vessel seem to be aimed at keeping the peace, in whatever way necessary.

das

[Deadeye]

Time to throw in my (long awaited, I am sure) $.02...

I am sure that it happened. I do not have the book with me at the moment, But I remember Cordingly saying in Under the Black Flag (to paraphrase) that Pirates were uniting to throw off the restrictions of society at large and that homosexuality would fall into that catagory.

I know that it happens even today in the modern Navy. I have heard the "Sea Stories" from my co-workers who have spent lots of time on ship, esspecially before women were allowed on-board. It even coined a joke "It Aint Gay when You're Underway!". But it still didnt happen as much as it would be made to beleive by society, stories, or the Village People.

I bet dollars to donuts that it was the same back then. of Course I am sure Roberts or Teach never instituted a "Don't Ask, Dont Tell" Policy

[Tall Paul]

on a lighter note, I just came across this.

[Jib]

What about the term "Ship Wife"?

[Dorian Lasseter]

Ship Wife was a term used in the RN, the Doxies would come out to a ship and only "Wives" were allowed aboard... the officers would turn a blind eye, most of the time, or I should say, many officers did... SO a doxie would be a "SHip Wife" to one or more crewmen...

[Ransom]

And also, because, as Capt. Bo says, of the fact that at sea, they were so dependant on eachother for survial, and all were openly armed or had free access to knives etc. If it wasn't mutually agreeable, it wouldn't be in one's best interest to proceed. Even it it was mutally agreeable, I would think it would be kept fairly discreet for reasons already mentioned. I can imagine being discovered as a willing "bottom" on a long voyage would make for a rather rough trip, or, if the crew tended towards the punitive, one wouldn't last long enough for prison.[/color]

Very interesting topic. One that I had just had a conversation with a friend about not long ago. Being female and straight, I am still not of the opinion that all men are ravenous for sex 24/7. (Although some might want you to think so! **LOL**)

I agree that buggery was probably no more prevalent on board ship than on land. I agree with the quote above—most pirates, if propositioned by a ship mate—could make it very plain the attention wasn't wanted. If it was, then I suspect secrecy would be the order of the day (night). They were a close, violent society prone to drunkeness. The wrong proposition to the wrong man might find some poor devil stabbed and tossed overboard for his mistake.

Thanks to the other mates on this thread for the book list. I'm sure they all make for an interesting read on an interesting subject.

[CaptainSatan]

On a more serious note....

This about more recent events in Royal Navy. And NOT specifically about pirates or the GAOP.

"THE GOLDEN RIVET"

I do not wish to make an issue of this, and would not otherwise have mentioned it. However, as I have been challenged, and in high places, to prove that every word in the three-word title of my book is accurate, as otherwise it would be misleading, I have included here an extract from the Naval Chronicle that was sent to me by a retired naval officer about a hanging for sodomy - see SODOMY - A HANGING. I shall reproduce it as an appendix to any second edition of the book.

For the same reason, and reluctantly, I would also draw the attention of readers to this front page head-line article in The Times of Thursday 31 October 2002:-

“A secret clamp-down on homosexuality in the Fleet was ordered in the late sixties after officials discovered that half of all sailors had indulged in gay acts and that no ship was immune from the risk of blackmail.

“The problem was highlighted in 1969 when scores of sexually explicit photographs of British sailors were found in a flat in Bermuda. More than 400 sailors had been involved in "gross indecency" there, and the names of the men and their ships were written on the pictures.

“At the same time, more and more drunken sailors were being lured into having sex with catamites, men masquerading as beautiful women, in Singapore.

'The security concerns which will revive old 'hello sailor' jokes and Sir Winston Churchill's assertion that naval life was 'rum, sodomy and the lash' are disclosed in documents released by the Public Record Office yesterday under the 30-year rule. They say that homosexuals were at risk of being blackmailed because of disgusting, infamous or immoral acts that they would want to keep hidden.

“Admiral Sir John Bush, the Commander-in Chief of the Western Fleet, responded by writing to all commanding officers, ordering them to stamp out this vice. 'There is,regrettably, ample evidence that homosexual practices are rife in the Fleet', he wrote in November 1969. 'It can be assumed that the cases that come to official notice are but a small proportion of those who indulge in these practices'.”

The scale of the problem had been outlined a year earlier in Captain Donald MacIntyre's Report on Homosexuality in the Royal Navy. That claimed that there was a risk of discharging on security grounds a “considerable number of men who were otherwise loyal. Senior naval officers have told me that they reckon that at least 50 per cent of the Fleet have sinned homosexually at some time in their naval service life”.

The article went on to explain the perceived security threat and stated that a large number of naval ratings went to a male brothel in Bermuda where they were lavishly entertained and given presents in return for sexual favours, giving rise to fears of blackmail if the pictures were obtained by a foreign power. The case led to at least 40 sailors being discharged.

Naval friends tell me that homosexuality is jocularly called “the Golden Rivet” that holds the Navy together!

Buggery

If any Person in the Fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable Sin of Buggery or Sodomy with Man or Beast, he shall be punished with Death by the sentence of a Court-martial.

From The Naval Chronicle for 1807, Volume 18, p 342.

On the 2d of October, a court martial was held on board the Salvador del Mundo, in Hamoaze, Plymouth, on charges exhibited by Captain Dilkes, of his Majesty's ship Hazard, against William Berry, first lieutenant of the said ship, for a breach of the 2d and 29th articles; the former respecting uncleanness, and the latter the horrid and abominable crime which delicacy forbids us to name. Thomas Gibbs, a boy belonging to the ship, proved the offence, as charged to have been committed on 23d of August, 1807.

Several other witnesses were called in corroboration; among whom was Elizabeth Bowden, a female who has been on board the Hazard these eight months. Curiosity had prompted her to look through the key-hole of the cabin-door, and it was thus she became possessed of the evidence which she gave. She appeared in court dressed in a long jacket and blue trowsers [sic].

The evidence being heard in support of the charges, but the prisoner not being prepared to enter upon his defence, he begged time, which the court readily granted, until ten o'clock the next day, at which hour the court assembled again, and having heard what the prisoner had to offer in his defence, and having maturely and deliberately weighed and considered the same, the court were of opinion, that the charges had been fully proved; and did adjudge the said William Berry to be hanged at the yard-arm of such one of his Majesty's ships, and at such time, as the Right Honourable the Commissioners of the Admiralty shall direct. Sir J.T.Duckworth was the president.

The unfortunate prisoner was a native of Lancaster, and only in his 22d year, above six feet high, remarkably well made, and as fine and handsome a man as in the British navy. He was to have been married on his return to port.

The awful sentence of the court was carried into execution on Monday the 19th of October, on board the Hazard, in Plymouth Sound, the prisoner having been removed from the Salvador del Mundo into that ship which lay alongside a hulk in Hamoaze. At nine o'clock he appeared, and mounted the scaffold with the greatest fortitude. He then requested to speak with the Rev. Mr Birdwood on the scaffold; he said a few words to him, but in so low a tone of voice they could not be distinctly heard. The blue cap being put over his face, the fatal bow gun was fired, and he was run up to the starboard fore-yard-arm, with a thirty-two pound shot tied to his feet. Unfortunately the knot had got round under his chin, which caused great convulsions for a quarter of an hour. After being suspended the usual time, he was lowered into his coffin, which was ready to receive him in a boat immediately under, and conveyed to the Royal Hospital, where his friends meant to apply for his body for interment. He was dressed in a blue coat, white waistcoat, blue pantaloons, and boots. For the last week he seemed penitent, firmly collected, and prepared to meet his fate.

Read More