Jump to content

Talk:Xōchipilli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Xochipilli)

Untitled

[edit]

god

Could he be the precursor to Kokopelli? The names and descriptions of these entities are too close to be coincidence.


the original text and more information/pictures may be found here http://www.erowid.org/entheogens/xochi/xochi.shtml

found by sokratis.de ;)

Homosexuality

[edit]

I cannot find any valuable source that this info is true. In the Daily Lives of the Aztecs on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest by Jacques Soustelle there is nothing about homosexuality or even male prostitution. The little online sources I did find suggest that this was essentially made up by their Spanish nemesis or looked infavorably at it. I think serious refernces are needed and should be looked into, along with that it should be mentioned that this might be nothing more than another story that the Spanish made up to further demonize the Mexica ppl. Xuchilbara 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending section. Homosexuality and prostitution certainly existed in pre-Columbian Mexica society, but the idea that Xochipilli was a god of male prostitution is another thing entirely. --Ptcamn 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert, but I have been studying this deity in particular and Mexica religion, poetry and culture for a while now. The link with homosexuality and male prostitution is made in the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexico city, which I recently visited. Now, of course, this does not really trace the genesis of this notion, and sadly, since I was reading for myself all this years, rather than doing academic research, I have no list of my own sources. I will say that the museum is usually curated by competent academics. The question of whether some particular reported aspect of Mexica life is accurate or a Spanish fabrication is common to controvertial things reported, notably human sacrifice; it is an insidious question and hard to answer, by destroying the culture actively, up to and including systematic destruction of books, the Spanish made themselves into "arbiters" and almost sole reporters, which means that the truthfulness of the source, when Spanish, is always an issue (they had a political and religious agenda), but moreover, even when truthful, they could not help but report through their own cultural lens.
I personally find nothing wrong with either behaviour, so it does not demonize them in my book. From what I know of the Mexica, they were very strict, but not puritanical. Let me explain: a lot of leniency was allowed some members of society, while very strict behaviour was expected of others. I believe that they tolerated use of entheogens in their society, but did not look upon it favourably in their ellites. If that were the case, would it be so strange that a particular god associated with some marginal behaviours be associated with others? (Assuming the marginality of prostitution and/or homosexuality, as I know little of their stance towards either.) Another thing to consider is that He is associated with flower and song (which as a phrase meant poetry in their poetic language, and thus the association with writing, especially poetry), also flower as an allegory of painting and psychedelic imagery, as well as song, as in music, but also the aural components of the entheogenic experience. Given the heightened connection of male homosexuals to their femenine side in our culture, and assuming that holds more or less true for other cultures, as well as the connection in many cultures of courtesans/prostitutes to the arts, is this link then much of a stretch?
I offer no conclusions, merely musings to stimulate discussions. I would love any sources, especially active links that do not require the buying of books, though pointing me at books is also welcome. I will in turn endeavour to post any links I come across. Jergas (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That and prostitution wasn't as "nice" as it seemed. I'm not sure about homosexuality, [It would be unrealistic to say it did not exist.] but prostitutes were sacrifaced to Tlazolteotl. I don't think the Aztecs were "purity minded" per se. However, they seemed stricter about certin sexual practices than one would normally suspect and much of lustful sex was considered a sin. I would think if anything some deity like or similar to Tlazolteotl would be more on the homosexuality thing than Xochipilli. Although his twin is Xochiquetzal a patron of female prostitutes, I've never really seen any source that considers him equal in that respect. Xuchilbara 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversion

[edit]

I reverted the recent assertion added to the opening sentence, a categorical statement that Xochipilli was the patron [deity] of homosexuals and homosexual prostitutes, accompanied by half-a-dozen or more references.

For one thing, a lot of those references given do not actually have much to say about the topic: Benjamin Keen's book says nothing of it, AFAIK Bernal Diaz's acct (either of the two translation versions given) doesn't name xochipilli, and Mendelssohn's book is completely irrelevant. That leaves just sources like Stephen O. Murray and Richard Trexler, who are not Mesoamerican scholars and whose views I doubt are representative of what Mesoamerican scholarship interprets these deity figures to represent and stand for.

For another, as noted above Mesoamerican cultures' construction of gender and sexuality roles is rather different from modern western ones and categories, so one can't simply equate the two. It really would need a more nuanced and carefully researched approach here, with due regard to WP:UNDUE. I'd have no problem with mentioning here what scholars such as Murray and Trexler might have to say abt the topic, but it seems to me that their claims need to be put into the context of coming from another field and research angle altogether, ie not portray or presume that all and standard Mesoam scholarship shares the same interpretation.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the quote from David Greenberg that directly say this, and the Encylopedia of Queer myth, symbol and spirit reference. The Encylopedia of homosexuality says the same thing, quoting Bernal Díaz del Castillo. So it seems primary, secondary and tertiary sources support this claim. Rewording to "has been interpreted as" is fine by me. We can even name those that have done so, but that seems a long list.YobMod 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xochipilli & Mayahuel? Make up your mind.

[edit]

From the Xochipilli page:

His wife was the human girl Mayahuel

From the Mayahuel page:

Mayahuel is the wife of Patecatl.

make up your mind . --Lo'oris (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally, not about this question in particular, I can say that mythology is not consistent like that. Different myths talking about the same gods and godesses will offer different versions of pretty much any aspect of the myth, including marriages and kin relationships. Jergas (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]