In the sixth and final episode of The Ouija Sessions, you will hear the exceptional story of Paul Grappe, who fled from war using an unsuspected disguise.
If you liked the series, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel… soon there’ll be more surprises!
The ladies and gentlemen you see above are practicing the sexual roleplay called pony play, in which one of the two participants takes on the role of the horse and the other of the jockey. This is a quirky niche within the wider field of dom/sub relationships, yet according to the alternative sexuality expert Ayzad
aficionados can reach impressive levels of specialization: there are those who prefer working on posture and those who organize real races on the track, some live it as a sexual variant while others tend to focus on the psychological experience. Ponygirls often report loving this game because it allows them to regress to a primordial perception of the world, in which every feeling is experienced with greater intensity: many describe reverting to their usual “human condition” as harsh and unpleasant. Although there are no precise figures, it is believed that pony play is actively practiced by no more than 2,000 people worldwide, yet this fantasy is appreciated by a far greater number of sympathizers.
Ayzad, XXX. Il dizionario del sesso insolito, Castelvecchi. Edizione Kindle.
But few people know that this erotic mis-en-scene has an illustrious forerunner: the first unwilling ponyboy in history was none other than the greatest philosopher of ancient times1, Aristotle!
(Well, not really. But what is reality, dear Aristotle?)
At the beginning of the 1200s, in fact, a curious legend began to circulate: the story featured Aristotle secretly falling in love with Phyllis, wife of Alexander the Macedonian (who was a pupil of the great philosopher) .
Phyllis, a beautiful and shrewd woman, decided to exploit Aristotle’s infatuation to teach a lesson to her husband, who was neglecting her by spending whole days with his mentor. So she told Aristotle that she would grant him her favors if he agreed to let her ride on his back. Blinded by passion, the philosopher accepted and Phyllis arranged for Alexander the Great to witness, unseen, this comic and humiliating scene.
The story, mentioned for the first time in a sermon by Jacques de Vitry, became immediately widespread in popular iconography, so much so that it was represented in etchings, sculptures, furnishing objects, etc. To understand its fortune we must focus for a moment on its two main protagonists.
First of all, Aristotle: why is he the victim of the satire? Why targeting a philosopher, and not for instance a king or a Pope?
The joke worked on different levels: the most educated could read it as a roast of the Aristotelian doctrine of enkráteia, i.e. temperance, or knowing how to judge the pros and cons of pleasures, knowing how to hold back and dominate, the ability to maintain full control over oneself and one’s own ethical values.
But even the less educated understood that this story was meant to poke fun at the hypocrisy of all philosophers — always preaching about morality, quibbling about virtue, advocating detachment from pleasures and instincts. In short, the story mocked those who love to put theirselves on a pedestal and teach about right and wrong.
On the other hand, there was Phyllis. What was her function within the story?
At first glance the anecdote may seem a classic medieval exemplum designed to warn against the dangerous, treacherous nature of women. A cautionary tale showing how manipulative a woman could be, clever enough to subdue and seduce even the most excellent minds.
But perhaps things are not that simple, as we will see.
And finally there’s the act of riding, which implies a further ambiguity of a sexual nature: did this particular type of humiliation hide an erotic allusion? Was it a domination fantasy, or did it instead symbolize a gallant disposition to serve and submit to the beloved maiden fair?
To better understand the context of the story of Phyllis and Aristotle, we must inscribe it in the broader medieval topos of the “Power of Women” (Weibermacht in German).
For example, a very similar anecdote saw Virgil in love with a woman, sometimes called Lucretia, who one night gave him a rendez-vous and lowered a wicker basket from a window so he coulf be lifted up to her room; but she then hoisted the basket just halfway up the wall, leaving Virgil trapped and exposed to public mockery the following morning.
Judith beheading Holofernes, Jael driving the nail through Sisara’s temple, Salome with the head of the Baptist or Delilah defeating Samson are all instances of very popular female figures who are victorious over their male counterparts, endlessly represented in medieval iconography and literature. Another example of the Power of Women trope are funny scenes of wives bossing their husbands around — a recurring theme called the “battle of the trousers”.
These women, whether lascivious or perfidious, are depicted as having a dangerous power over men, yet at the same time they exercise a strong erotic fascination.
The most amusing scenes — such as Aristotle turned into a horse or Virgil in the basket — were designed to arouse laughter in both men and women, and were probably also staged by comic actors: in fact the role reversal (the “Woman on Top”) has a carnivalesque flavor. In presenting a paradoxical situation, maybe these stories had the ultimate effect of reinforcing the hierarchical structure in a society dominated by males.
And yet Susan L. Smith, a major expert on the issue, is convinced that their message was not so clearcut:
the Woman on Top is best understood not as a straightforward manifestation of medieval antifeminism but as a site of contest through which conflicting ideas about gender roles could be expressed.
Susan L. Smith, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia (2006)
The fact that the story of Phyllis and Aristotle lent itself to a more complex reading is also confirmed by Amelia Soth:
It was an era in which the belief that women were inherently inferior collided with the reality of female rulers, such as Queen Elizabeth, Mary Tudor, Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Catherine of Portugal, and the archduchesses of the Netherlands, dominating the European scene. […] Yet the image remains ambiguous. Its popularity cannot be explained simply by misogyny and distrust of female power, because in its inclusion on love-tokens and in bawdy songs there is an element of delight in the unexpected reversal, the transformation of sage into beast of burden.
Perhaps even in the Middle Ages, and at the beginning of the modern period, the dynamics between genres were not so monolithic. The story of Phyllis and Aristotle had such a huge success precisely because it was susceptible to diametrically opposed interpretations: from time to time it could be used to warn against lust or, on the contrary, as a spicy and erotic anecdote (so much so that the couple was often represented in the nude).
For all these reasons, the topos never really disappeared but was subjected to many variations in the following centuries, of which historian Darin Hayton reports some tasty examples.
In 1810 the parlor games manual Le Petit Savant de Société described the “Cheval d’Aristote”, a vaguely cuckold penalty: the gentleman who had to endure it was obliged to get down on all fours and carry a lady on his back, as she received a kiss from all the other men in a circle.
The odd “Aristotle ride” also makes its appearance in advertising posters for hypnotists, a perfect example of the extravagances hypnotized spectators were allegedly forced to perform. (Speaking of the inversion of society’s rules, those two men on the left poster, who are compelled to kiss each other, are worth noting.)
In 1882 another great philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, brought to the stage his own version of Phyllis and Aristotle, himself taking on the role of the horse. In the photographs, he and his friend Paul Rée are at the mercy of the whip held by Lou von Salomé (the woman Nietzsche was madly in love with).
And finally let’s go back to the present day, and to those pony guys we saw at the beginning.
Today the “perversion of Aristotle”, far from being a warning about the loss of control, has come to mean the exact opposite: it has become a way to allow free rein (pun intended) to erotc imagination.
Ponies on the Delta, a ponly play festival, is held every year in Louisiana where a few hundred enthusiasts get together to engage in trot races, obstacle races and similar activities before a panel of experts. There are online stores that specialize in selling hooves and horse suits, dozens of dedicated social media accounts, and even an underground magazine called Equus Eroticus.
Who knows what the austere Stagirite would have thought, had he known that his name was going to be associated with such follies.
In a certain sense, the figure of Aristotle was really “perverted”: the philosopher had to submit not to the imaginary woman named Phyllis, but to the apocryphal legend of which he became the unwilling protagonist.
Article by guestblogger Dario Carere
Joshua Hoffine‘s terrifying images drag us into a world of nightmares, hunting, danger, and they also contain a touch of irony and romance.
His first horror photographs, dating back to 2003, have consecrated him as the founder of a real sub-genre, which combines elements of literature and cinema to generate a new perspective for the photographic art; as he stated in an interview, unlike video games, music, etc., photography has never enjoyed a true horror conjugation before.
Hoffine’s monsters populate cellars, attics, bathrooms, all those places that are most familiar to us and that we consider safe; demons mock us from dark corners, as we try to figure out where they are. But above all, they can hide inside us.
Looking in the mirror we discover that we are only a grotesque copy of our own fears; beauty, as it often happens in romantic literature, is just the superficial layer for a corrupt and deformed soul. Nineteenth-century scenarios become the background for brutal crimes and surreal apparitions, through which Hoffine’s imagery produces silent and unprecedented stories, compressed in a single shot capable of throwing up a thousand questions.
As a lover of horror classics, Hoffine takes advantage of the immortal fame of icons such as Jack the Ripper, Dr. Jekill and Mr. Hyde, Nosferatu and Elizabeth Bathory (beautifully captured as she wears a beauty mask during her usual bath in a virgin’s blood), to revisit their spirit in a modern way, telling the story in one or more shots. Lighting, make-up and expressiveness are studied in detail to transform the image into a continuous exchange between reality and vision, which is why each picture is always something more than a simple “movie scene”. The moment he decides to immortalize is the perfect point of maximum dramatic tension.
The classics of horror are often represented in his work, as you can see in his recently published anthology, a collection that spans across his last thirteen years of work. The silent killer, Stephen King’s clown with his menacing balloon, the horde of ravenous zombies, the corpse bride: it’s a great tribute to the horror genre which, as intended by the author, by stabbing our imagination forces us to “see what we did not want to see“.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Hoffine has also ventured into taking the role of director in 2014, for his first short (yet very intense) film, Dark Lullaby.
https://vimeo.com/150959454
The protagonist of Dark Lulllaby is one of Hoffine’s daughters. Starting from his very first shots, dedicated to childhood nightmares, Hoffine has often immersed his daughters (along with other relatives) in the surreal scenarios he creates; these photographs, collected in his most famous work After Dark My Sweet, are still in my opinion the best of his vast production.
The reason is that they concern us closely: the monster under the bed, the spiders entering from the window, the jaws that seem to come out of the darkness of the closet — they all belong to the oldest memories each of us has, and sometimes even to our everyday adult life. These are primordial, indelible nightmares: darkness, insects and ghosts are three things that almost all of us fear, even when there’s really no reason, even when it might feel silly to be afraid.
Combining fantastic monsters and little girls is a way to create a terribly effective contrast, one that was always dear to the horror genre. However rich the artist’s imagination and the skill of the model/actor may be, no one can represent horror better than children. In truth, through horror, we always go back to childhood, reopening our trunk of memories we left in the attic, to return to that good old pavor nocturnus. This is why a child remains the perfect protagonist of any scary scene.
One wonders what kind of memory Hoffine’s five daughters will retain from this experience.
Of course, this master of horror should be credited with having created a new kind of photography, which through the excellent use of makeup is able to show us what we did not want to see.
Here is Joshua Hoffine’s official website.
Yesterday, at the age of 87, Herschell Gordon Lewis passed away.
This man remains an adorable, unique paradox. Clumsy director yet a crafty old devil, completely foreign to the elegance of images, who only ever made movies to scrape out a living. A man who unwillingly changed the history of cinema.
His intuition — even slightly accidental, according to the legend — was to understand B-movies had the task of filling, unveiling mainstream cinema’s ellipses: the key was to try and put inside the frame everything that, for moral or conventional reasons, was usually left off-screen.
A first example were nudies, those little flicks featuring ridiculous plots (if any), only meant to show some buttocks and breasts; a kind of rudimental sexploitation, not even aiming to be erotic. H. G. Lewis was the first to realize there was a second taboo besides nudity that was never being shown in “serious” movies, and on which he could try to cash in: violence, or better, its effects. The obscene view of blood, torn flesh, exposed guts.
In 1960 Hitchcock, in order to get Psycho through censorship, had to promise he would change the editing of the shower scene, because someone in the examination board thought he had seen a frame where the knife blade penetrated Janet Leigh’s skin. It doesn’t matter that Hitch never really re-edited the sequence, but presented it again a month later with no actual modification (and this time nobody saw anything outrageous): the story is nonetheless emblematic of Hays Code‘s impositions at the time.
Three years later, Lewis’ Blood Feast came out. An awfully bad movie, poorly directed and even more awkwardly acted. But its opening sequence was a bomb by itself: on the scene, a woman was stabbed in the eye, then the killer proceeded to dismember her in full details… all this, in a bathtub.
In your face, Sir Alfred.
Of course today even Lewis’ most hardcore scenes, heirs to the butcheries of Grand Guignol, seem laughable on the account of their naivety. It’s even hard to imagine splatter films were once a true genre, before gore became a language.
Explicit violence is today no more than an additional color in the director’s palette, an available option to knowingly choose among others: we find it anywhere, from crime stories to sci-fi, even in comedies. As blood has entered the cinematic lexicon, it is now a well-thought-out element, pondered and carefully weighed, sometimes aestheticised to the extremes of mannerism (I’m looking at you, Quentin).
But in order to get to this freedom, the gore genre had to be relegated for a long time to second and third-rank movies. To those bad, dirty, ugly films which couldn’t show less concern for the sociology of violence, or its symbolic meanings. Which, for that very same reason, were damn exciting in their own right.
“Blood Feast is like a Walt Whitman poem“, Lewis loved to repeat. “It’s no good, but it was the first of its type“.
Today, with the death of its godfather, we may declare the splatter genre finally filed and historicized.
But still, any time we are shocked by some brutal killing in the latest Game of Thrones episode, we should spare a thankful thought to this man, and that bucket of cheap offal he purchased just to make a bloody film.
Sometimes the most unbelievable stories remain forever buried between the creases of history. But they may happen to leave a trail behind them, although very small; a little clue that, with a good deal of fortune and in the right hands, finally brings them to light. As archaeologists dig up treasures, historians unearth life’s peculiarities.
If Paul Grappe hadn’t been murdered by his wife on the 28th of July 1928, not a single hint to his peculiar story would have been found in the Archive of the Paris Police Prefecture. And if Fabrice Virgili, research manager at the CNRS, scrutinizing the abovementioned archives almost one hundred years later to write an article about conjugal violence at the beginning of the century, hadn’t given a look at that dossier…
The victim: Grappe Paul Joseph, born on the 30th of August 1891 in Haute Marne, resident 34 Rue de Bagnolet, shot dead on the 28th of July 1928.
The culprit: Landy Louise Gabrielle, born on the 10th of March 1892 in Paris, Grappe’s spouse.
This is how the life of Paul Grappe ended. But, as we go back through the years starting from the trial papers, we discover something really astonishing.
In the 1910s Paris sounds like a promise to a young man coming from Haute-Marne. It was mainly a working-class context and like everybody else the twenty-year-old Paul Grappe worked hard to make ends meet. He hadn’t received a proper education but the uncontrollable vitality that would mark out his entire existence encouraged him to work hard: with stubborn determination he obliged himself to study, and became an optician. He also attended some mandolin’s courses, where he met Louise Landy.
Their modest financial means didn’t interfere with their feelings: they fell in love and in 1911 they tied the knot. Shortly afterwards, Paul had to leave for military service, but managed to be appointed to stand guard over the bastions of Paris, in order to be close to his own Louise. Our soldier was a skilled runner, he could ride, swim (which was quite uncommon at the time) and he quickly distinguished himself until he was appointed corporal. Having spent the required two years on active service, Paul thought he was finally done with the army. But the War clouds were gathering, and everything quickly deteriorated. In August 1914 Paul Grappe was sent to the front to fight against Germany.
The 102nd Infantry division constantly moved, day after day, because the front was not well defined yet. Then gradually came the time to confront the enemy: at the beginning there were only small skirmishes, then came the first wounded, the first dead. And, finally, the real battle began. For the French, the most bloody stage of the entire world war was exactly this first battle, called Battle of the Frontiers, that claimed thousands of victims – more than 25,000 in one day, the 22nd of August 1914.
Paul Grappe was at the forefront. When Hell arrived, he had to confront its devastating brutality.
He was wounded in the leg at the end of August, he was treated and sent back to the trenches in October. The situation had changed, the front was stabilized, but the battles were not less dangerous. During a bloody gunfight Paul was wounded again, in the right index finger. A finger hit by a bullet? He was strongly suspected of having practiced self-mutilation, and in such situations people were not particularly kind to those who did something like that: Paul risked death penalty and summary execution. But some brothers in arms gave evidence for him, and Paul escaped the war court. Convalescent, he was moved to Chartres. December, January, February and March went by. Four months seemed to be too much time to recover from the loss of one single finger, and his superiors suspected that Paul was willingly reopening his wounds (like many other soldiers used to do); in April 1915 he was ordered to go back to the front. And it was here that, confronted with the perspective of going back to that horrible limbo made of barbed wire, mud, whistling bullets and cannon shots, Paul decided that he would change his life forever: he chose to desert.
He left the military hospital and, instead of going to the barracks, he caught the first train to Paris.
We can only imagine how Louise felt: she was happy to learn that her husband was safe and sound, far from the war, and afraid that everything could end at any moment, if he was discovered. During the spring of 1915 the army was desperately in need of men, even people declared unfit for military service were sent to the front, and consequently the efforts to find the missing deserters were redoubled. For three times the guards burst into the home of his mother-in-law, where Paul was hidden, but couldn’t find him.
As for Paul – that had always had a wild and untamed temper – he couldn’t stand the pressure of secrecy. He was obliged to live as a real prisoner, he didn’t dare stick his nose out of the door: simply walking down the streets of Paris, a young man in his twenties would have aroused suspicion at that time because all the young men – maybe with the exception of some ministry’s employees – were at the front.
One day, overcome by boredom, joking with Louise he chose one of her dresses and wore it. Why not dress up as a woman?
Louise and Paul took a turn. He had a careful shave; his wife put a delicate make-up on him, adjusted the female clothes, put his head into a lady’s little hat. It wasn’t a perfect disguise, but it might work.
Holding their breath, they went out in the streets. They walked down the road for a little while, pretending to be at ease. They sat down in a café, and realized that people apparently didn’t notice anything strange about those two friends that were enjoying their drinks. Coming back home, they shivered as they noticed a man that was intensely gazing at them, fixing them… the man finally whistled in admiration. It was the ultimate evidence: disguised as a woman, Paul was so convincing that he deceived even the attentive eye of a tombeur de femmes.
From that moment on, to the outside world, the two of them formed a couple of women who used to live together. Paul bought some clothes, adopted a more feminine hairstyle, learnt to change his voice. He chose the name of Suzanne Landgard. For those who take on a new identity, it is very important to choose a proper name, and Landgard could be interpreted as “he who protects (garde) Landy?”.
Now Paul/Suzanne could go out barefaced, he could also contribute to the family economy: while Louise worked in a company that produced educational materials, Suzanne started working in a tailor’s shop. But maybe she struggled to stay in her role, because, as far as we know, she frequently changed job because of problems concerning her relationship with her colleagues.
War was over, at last. Paul wanted to stop living undercover, but he was still in danger. Like many other deserters used to do at the time, also our couple left for Spain (a neutral country) and for a short time took shelter in the Basque Country. They returned to Paris in 1922.
But the atmosphere of the capital had changed: the so-called “crazy years” had just begun and Paris was a town that wanted to forget the war at any cost. It was therefore rich in novelties, artistic avant-gardes and unrestrained pleasures. Louise and Suzanne realized that after all they may look like two garçonnes, fashionable women flaunting a masculine hairdo and wearing trousers, shocking conservative people. Louise used to paint lead toy soldiers during the evening, after work, to make some extra money.
Paul couldn’t find a job instead, and his insatiable lust for life led him to spend some time at the Bois de Boulogne, a public park that during those years was a well known meeting point for free love: there gathered libertines, partner-swappers, prostitutes and pimps.
Did Paul, dressed as Suzanne, whore to bring some money home? Maybe he didn’t. Anyhow, he became one of the “queen” of the Bois.
From then on, his days became crowded with casual intercourses, orgies, female and male lovers, and even encoded newspaper ads. Paul/Suzanne even tried to convince Louise to participate in these erotic meetings, but this only fuelled the first conflicts within the couple, that was very close until then.
His thirst for experience was not yet satiated: in 1923 Suzanne Landgard was one of the first “women” that jumped with a parachute.
“You are not tall enough, my dear, I am a refined person, I want to get out of this mass, this brute mass that goes to work in the morning, like slaves do, and goes back home at evening”, he repeated to Louise.
In January 1924 the long awaited amnesty arrived at last.
The same morning in which the news was spread, Paul went down the stairs dressed as a man, without make-up. The porter of the apartment building was shocked as she saw him go out: “Madame Suzanne, have you gone crazy?” “I am not Suzanne, I am Paul Grappe and I am going to declare myself a deserter to apply for the amnesty.” As soon as the authorities learnt about his case, even the press discovered it. Some newspaper headlines read: “The transvestite deserter”. Prejudices started to circulate: paradoxically, now that he was discovered to be a man (so the two supposed lesbians were a married couple) Paul and Louise were evicted. The Communist Party mobilized to defend the two proletarians that were victims of prejudices, and in a short time Paul found himself at the core of an improvised social debate. The little popularity he gained maybe went to his head: believing that he may become a celebrity, or have some chance as an actor, he started to distribute autographed pictures of him both as a male and as a female and went as far as to hire a book agent.
But the more prosaic reality was that Paul told the fantastic story of his endeavours mostly in the cafés, to be offered some drinks. He showed the picture album of him as Suzanne, and also kept a dossier of obscene photographs, that are lost today. Little by little he started to drink at least five litres of wine per day. He lost one job after another, and turned aggressive even at home.
As he recovered his manhood – that same virility that condemned him to the horror of the trenches – he became violent. Before the Great War he had shown no signs of bisexuality nor violence, and most probably the traumas he suffered on the battlefield had a share in the quick descent of Paul Grappe into alcoholism, brutality and chaos.
He used to spend all the salary of his wife to get drunk. The episodes of domestic violence multiplied.
In a desperate attempt of reconciliation, Louise accepted to participate in her husband’s sexual games, and in order to please him (this is what she declared later in her deposition) took an attractive Spanish boy named Paco as her lover. But the unstable Paul didn’t appreciate her efforts, and started to feel annoyed by this third party. When he ordered his wife to leave Paul, Louise left him instead.
From that moment on, their story looks like the sad and well-known stories of many drifting couples: he found her at her mother’s home, he threatened her with a gun, and begged her to go back home with him. She surrendered, but she quickly discovered she was pregnant. Who was the father? Paul, or her lover Paco? In December 1925 the child was born, and Louise decided to call him Paul – obviously to reassure her husband about his fatherhood. The three of them lived a serene life for some months, like a real family. Paul started again to look for a job and tried to drink less. But it didn’t last. Crises and violence started again, until the night of the murder the man apparently went as far as to threaten to hurt his child. Louise killed Paul shooting twice at his head, then ran to the police headquarters to give herself up.
The trial had a certain media echo, because of the sensationalist hues of the story: the accused, the wife that shot dead the “transvestite deserter”, was represented by the famous lawyer Maurice Garçon. While Louise was in prison, her child died of meningitis. Therefore the lawyer insisted on the fact that the widow was also a mourning mother, a victim of conjugal violence that had to kill her husband to protect their infirm child – on the other hand he tried to play down the woman’s complicity in her husband’s desertion, transvestism, and shocking behaviours. In 1929, Louise Landy was declared innocent, which rarely happened in the case of trials for murder of the spouse. From that moment on Louise disappeared from any news section, and there was no more news about her except that she got married again, and then died in 1981.
The story of Paul Grappe, with all that it suggests about those troubled times, the traumas of the soldiers, the inner conflicts implied by gender, was discovered by Fabrice Virgili who told it in his book La garçonne et l’assassin : Histoire de Louise et de Paul, déserteur travesti dans le Paris des années folles (the title is ironical, and the garçonne is obviously Paul, whereas Louise is the murderer), and also inspired the comic strip by Chloé Cruchaudet entitled Mauvais genre.
Francesco è un nostro affezionato lettore, e una delle migliori amicizie di penna che abbiamo avuto la fortuna di instaurare grazie a questo blog. Giovane, brillante, simpatico – in breve, una persona piena di idee interessanti. Un esempio: sei mesi fa, Francesco decide di tagliarsi i capelli, fino ad allora molto lunghi, e questo fatto che per qualsiasi altra persona sarebbe tutto sommato banale e scontato, diventa per lui un vero e proprio atto magico, un’occasione per instillare un po’ di meraviglia nella sua vita: invece di farli spazzolare via dal pavimento come rifiuti, decide di donare i propri capelli alla Banca dei Capelli, un’associazione che si occupa di fabbricare parrucche per i malati di cancro. “È strano pensare come questa persona, che non conosco, porterà in testa ogni giorno una parte così intima, in fondo, di me. Qualcuno avrà accanto a sé ben sei anni di emozioni e ricordi, e fra quelle ciocche tesserà anche il suo futuro di speranza. Saranno non solo un oggetto d’uso, ma una muta consolazione, una carezza a distanza ad uno sconosciuto”.
Francesco è una persona affascinante, e non vi abbiamo ancora detto tutto.
Francesco è biologicamente una femmina di nome Silvia.
Potrebbe sembrare che “siamo tutti uguali” oppure “siamo tutti differenti” siano due espressioni il cui risultato in fondo non cambia, eppure qui su Bizzarro Bazar abbiamo sempre dato più valore alla seconda. Sono le visioni alternative, le esperienze non conformi, le vite non allineate che stimolano la nostra ricerca (oltre a cambiare veramente le cose, visto che spesso sono proprio le minoranze che fanno la storia).
Abbiamo quindi deciso di approfondire la strana condizione di chi ogni giorno deve fare i conti con un corpo in cui non si riconosce: Francesco ha accettato di rispondere al fuoco di fila delle nostre domande. La doverosa premessa è che il nostro interlocutore si definisce gender-fluid, vale a dire che non si sente strettamente transessuale ma piuttosto un mix dinamico di elementi di entrambi i generi sessuali al tempo stesso (da questo il suo peculiare uso intercambiabile di pronomi e aggettivi maschili/femminili).
Quando si sono manifestati i primi turbamenti della sfera identitaria? Come e in che modo hai cominciato a comprendere che eri in parte estraneo al tuo genere biologico di nascita? Quali conseguenze pratiche (di socializzazione, di integrazione, di autoimmagine) ha comportato all’inizio? Che rapporto avevi con il tuo corpo durante la pubertà?
Io sono nata in un paese veramente piccolo: le conseguenze dei pettegolezzi e delle aspettative sono facili da immaginare. Ci sono state persone tanto invidiose della mia nascita da femmina da odiarmi.
La prima volta che ho avvertito il disagio di essere qualcosa che non mi corrispondeva è stato quando, in terza elementare mi sono dovuto confrontare per la prima volta con la guerra “maschietti contro femminucce”.
I maschi hanno cominciato ad evitarmi, ad accomunarmi alle bambine, a pretendere (insieme agli adulti) che io mi conformassi a loro ed ai loro giochi: a me non interessava, non volevo, l’ho fatto a forza per sembrare normale.
Non volevo mettere la gonna per uscire, non volevo imparare a truccarmi per essere bella anche se mi piaceva farlo per giocare. Ho provato per anni e anni a conformarmi, ma… non era semplicemente possibile farlo. Anche vestita da donna, sembravo (e sembro) una specie di mostro, qualcosa che non veste la sua vera pelle. Sembrare normale è la cosa che cerco di combattere ora: sono ossessionata dallo sguardo onnipresente e giudicante del mondo.
Poi a 14 anni ho provato a giocare con i vestiti da uomo e, beh, è stata una scoperta incredibile. Ci stavo bene, in un modo sorprendente. Solo adesso, che sono molto più grande, ho capito che quello non era un semplice cambio d’abito.
Credi che vi sia nel tuo caso un qualche tipo di rapporto fra il genere che avverti come tuo, e il tuo orientamento sessuale?
Non esattamente. Mi ha creato e mi crea problemi, questo sì. La mia omosessualità (in realtà sono bisessuale, ma caso ha voluto che ultimamente abbia avuto solo compagne donne) è stata una specie di trauma.
Tutt’oggi sono in terapia per gli attacchi di panico, per il terrore, che mi provoca anche solo ammettere che mi piacciano le donne… figurarsi il resto.
Il fatto che io sia poi gender-fluid peggiora la situazione: ti porta a pensare che non sarai mai abbastanza per una persona. Chi vorrebbe stare con un ibrido che non è né uomo né donna?
L’androgino o l’ermafrodito sono figure simboliche estremamente potenti (certo, potresti dirmi che c’è differenza fra la simbologia e la vita pratica e quotidiana; ma non ne sono così convinto). Tu ti vedi davvero come “un ibrido che non è né uomo né donna”, oppure potresti pensarti positivamente come un ibrido che è sia uomo che donna?
Dipende dalle giornate. Ci sono volte in cui mi vedo in modo molto positivo, in cui mi sento parte della bellezza del tutto. In quei momenti mi sento un essere completo e felice, ma più spesso…
Più spesso è soltanto doloroso, perché non è facile capirsi, perché semplicemente non sono un ermafrodito perfetto quindi ci sono cose che mi sono precluse dal mio stesso corpo. È come essere spezzati. Mi ci è voluto tempo per comprendere che non si trattava di doppia personalità o qualcosa di simile: Francesco e Silvia non sono due entità separate, ma una sfumatura di colore che va dall’una all’altro.
Come gestisci il divario (se c’è) fra il privato e l’immagine che di te hanno gli altri?
Lo sto affrontando da quando mi sono trasferito: ora riesco a vestirmi come voglio (che non vuol necessariamente dire sempre da uomo, anzi; il mio stile è maglione sformato, jeans e scarpa da ginnastica), a parlare e a comportarmi come voglio.
Attualmente, per quanto riguarda il fisico, sto lavorando un po’ di più: la mia forma non mi permette di fingermi facilmente un ragazzo. Dopo un mese di pianti (l’ho già detto che sono pauroso?), ho comprato un binder (un accessorio simile a una canottiera che serve per modellare il petto) ed i miei primi veri vestiti da uomo. Ho tagliato i capelli proprio per non dover indossare una parrucca… e per sentirmi più me stesso.
Al lavoro e in famiglia mi chiamano tutti Silvia, ma i miei amici e talvolta anche altre persone mi chiamano col mio nome maschile, Francesco, e alcuni usano anche (per rispetto) il maschile per parlare. Per me il genere è indifferente, anche se mi piacerebbe che ci fosse un neutro o un modo per non doverlo specificare, come in inglese.
I movimenti LGBT, le lotte sociali, ti interessano oppure, pur riconoscendone l’importanza, sei uno di quelli che preferisce mantenere certe questioni nel privato?
Credo che il modo migliore di combattere sia far vedere al mondo che circonda me cosa voglia dire la vera felicità e la normalità della mia vita.
Alcune culture non distinguevano soltanto due generi sessuali, come la nostra, ma ne contemplavano un terzo, una via di mezzo fra i due principali, che spesso veniva considerato sacro: hai sentito o senti la nostra società come un peso oppressivo?
Sì, decisamente, perché tutti ti chiedono di scegliere. Io invece… non credo di voler MAI scegliere. Non ho bisogno di farlo, non ne provo il desiderio. Sono una via di mezzo e trovo SPLENDIDE le vie di mezzo come me. Un ragazzo con la gonna, un Kathoey, una ragazza vestita da uomo o meglio ancora un androgino/a sono quanto di più bello io possa contemplare.
Questa è una realizzazione degli ultimi mesi: finalmente ho capito che, se gli altri scelgono (per così dire) un ruolo preciso, non lo devo per forza fare anch’io.
Nella vita di tutti i giorni, in fondo, i caratteri sessuali non sono così definiti: anche le donne hanno i baffi, gli uomini possono avere il seno, i peli crescono anche sulla pelle femminile, così come gli uomini in molte culture si truccano. È troppo facile dividere tutto con una riga netta, senza la minima sfumatura.
Amici, parenti, genitori: come hanno affrontato la cosa, e come si è evoluta la loro posizione nel tempo? Come vivi oggi la tua condizione e quali progetti hai per il futuro (“piccole” e “grandi soluzioni” incluse, ma non solo)?
La maggioranza non sa della mia condizione. Questo a volte mi fa star male, perché vengono dette piccole cose (come insinuare che fingo, o chiedermi costantemente di prendere una decisione, di avere un figlio, di adeguarmi o rassegnarmi al fatto che io sia solo donna e che non possa essere altrimenti) che mi feriscono a fondo.
È anche vero che non posso biasimarli. Non è un modo di vivere che conoscono, non possono capire cosa si provi. Non è colpa loro, se mi feriscono.
Per il momento solo la mia compagna e alcune amiche sanno di me. Hanno avuto reazioni molto diverse, ma sostanzialmente tutte e tre dicono la medesima cosa: sii quello che ti senti. Sono la mia forza per combattere la paura. Parlarne è già un modo di sconfiggerla e cercare di andare oltre.
Attualmente la vivo con meno disagio rispetto a prima: qui posso anche infilarmi i vestiti da uomo e uscire, perfino parlare al maschile, nessuno osa dirmi nulla. Sul sesso (inteso come rapporto fra le coperte) ho ancora molti dubbi, molte paure.
Vorrei semplicemente continuare a capirmi, sconfiggere il terrore, operarmi e… beh, essere ME.
Aspetta un secondo… “operarmi”? Hai appena detto che non vuoi scegliere, che vorresti rimanere per sempre una “via di mezzo”…
Vorrei farmi sistemare il seno. È veramente di troppo per me, e qualunque cosa io faccia al proposito falsa la mia impressione sugli altri. Per i fianchi larghi, il sedere e la pancia posso anche soprassedere o al limite lavorarci dimagrendo e andando in palestra, per questo maledetto seno non posso fare nulla se non operarmi. Il problema è che, come saprai, queste operazioni sono abbastanza pericolose, hanno una degenza lunga, costano molto e se non sono eseguite bene il risultato è spesso deludente. Vorrei sostanzialmente adeguare il mio aspetto a me stesso… e poi si vedrà. Non credo di avere la necessità (né la voglia) di operarmi anche ai genitali.
Mi hai confidato che sei credente: Dio, se c’è, ti ha fatto un’ingiustizia o un regalo? La tua è una battaglia o un percorso di crescita? Nasciamo e moriamo su questo piccolo pianeta: c’è una risposta che sei riuscito a darti, sul perché nello schema delle cose ti sia capitata questa strana avventura?
Non credo che Dio abbia deciso di farmi soffrire. E lo dico semplicemente perché, da credente, SO che è un essere che mi ama, qualunque sia la sua forma, il suo nome, il suo aspetto.
Se mi ha creata così, se mi ha messa in questo corpo, c’è una ragione. Gli chiedo spesso perché l’abbia fatto proprio con me, ma in definitiva le mie domande a Lui non sono di solito riferite a me stessa: mi ritengo una persona molto fortunata.
Non credo neppure, dal momento che sono cattolico, che mi odi per come vivo. È stata certamente una cosa che mi ha molto pregiudicato, e lo fa tutt’ora. Io non mi cambio con le donne negli spogliatoi, né accarezzo bambini, perché, purtroppo, mi vedo come un germe contagioso. Non voglio rischiare di infettarli, anche se razionalmente so che, beh, sono solo un po’ sfasato.
Sì, è vero, ho dei problemi, ma non sono nulla di paragonabile al dolore che provano altri: non so cosa sia la fame, non so cosa sia la paura, né ho provato la guerra, nessuno mi ha mai fatto del male (consapevolmente).
Dio ha messo sulla mia strada le persone più belle che io abbia mai visto, e di questo e di molto altro posso essere grato: mi ha regalato un mondo che è talmente pieno di bellezza, amore e sogni, che sono fortunato anche solo a poterlo gustare.
Siete in una sala d’attesa: sedute come voi ci sono altre otto o nove persone. Un bambino di pochi mesi, tenuto in braccio dal papà, ad un tratto comincia a piangere. Un po’ imbarazzato, l’uomo si guarda intorno. Poi solleva un lembo della sua camicia, e si scopre il capezzolo. Il neonato si attacca avidamente al seno, mentre il papà vi sorride. Non siete culturalmente preparati a una scena simile. Come reagireste?
Sembra l’ennesima leggenda urbana, invece è realtà: anche i maschi possono allattare.
Le ghiandole mammarie maschili, nonostante siano presenti in ciascun individuo, non producono latte in normali circostanze. Ma già Darwin aveva notato la loro “completezza” e aveva ipotizzato che agli albori dell’umanità i figli potessero essere allattati indistintamente da maschi e femmine. E i resoconti di bambini svezzati con “latte paterno” sono presenti fin dall’antichità (se ne rileva traccia nel Talmud, in Aristotele, perfino in Anna Karenina). George Gould e Walter Pyle nel loro Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine del 1896 registrano diversi casi di allattamento maschile negli Stati Uniti meridionali.
Recentemente alcune storie simili sono divenute celebri sui media di mezzo mondo. Il caso più conosciuto è quello di un padre di Walapore, nello Sri Lanka: nel 2002 si venne a sapere che quest’uomo, avendo perso la moglie durante il parto, da mesi ormai allattava al seno le due figliole. Un fatto strano per tutti, ma non per il padre, che raccontò con la massima naturalezza l’inizio della sua esperienza: “mia figlia maggiore rifiutava di essere nutrita col latte in polvere dal biberon. Una sera ero così affranto che, pur di farla smettere di piangere, le offrii il mio capezzolo. Allora mi resi conto che ero in grado di allattarla al seno”.
Laura Shanley, consulente per le maternità, dopo aver letto un saggio di Dana Raphael (The Tender Gift: Breastfeeding, 1978), decise di provare se fosse sufficiente l’auto-suggestione per indurre una produzione maschile di latte. Convinse l’ex-marito David a “dire a se stesso che poteva allattare, e nel giro di una settimana una delle sue mammelle si gonfiò ed iniziò a gocciolare latte”. Che la faccenda sia davvero così semplice sembra piuttosto inverosimile, ma lasciamo il beneficio del dubbio all’entusiasta Laura.
Fatto sta che diversi tipi di animali dividono il compito dell’allattamento equamente fra mamma e papà: non soltanto le comunità di volpi volanti della Malaysia (un genere di pipistrello, ecco l’articolo che ne parla) annoverano maschi allattanti, ma anche capre e colombi possono occasionalmente compiere lo stesso exploit. Ovviamente per quanto riguarda i colombi non si tratta di un vero e proprio allattamento, ma del cosiddetto latte di gozzo, prodotto lattiginoso che viene dispensato ai cuccioli tanto dalle madri quanto dai padri, durante i primi 10-12 giorni di vita.
Ma ritornando alla nostra specie, e ai casi reali, la produzione maschile di latte avviene più spesso per cause meno “romantiche”. Si tratta più comunemente di un effetto collaterale di alcuni trattamenti farmacologici a base di ormoni. Ad esempio, nella cura del cancro alla prostata vengono utilizzati ormoni femminili per arginare la proliferazione del tumore. Questo può portare ad una stimolazione delle ghiandole mammarie. Allo stesso modo, i transessuali che stanno compiendo la cura ormonale rilevano talvolta i medesimi sintomi. Trattamenti antipsicotici o l’assunzione di droghe che bloccano i recettori della dopamina potrebbero avere un effetto simile. Situazioni di stress e di mancanza di cibo possono portare alla produzione di latte maschile: lo si riscontrò in alcuni dei detenuti dei campi di concentramento durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, e nelle truppe di ritorno dalle guerre di Vietnam e Corea.
Sembra insomma ormai ben documentata la possibilità che un uomo possa allattare suo figlio. Purtroppo, poche ricerche veramente esaustive sono state condotte al riguardo. Resta ancora un mistero come e in quali condizioni questa eventualità si palesi. Certo è che se una delle peculiarità escusivamente femminili dovesse venire a cadere, anche i ruoli all’interno della famiglia andrebbero ripensati.
Per molti padri, l’idea di nutrire il figlio attraverso il proprio corpo sembra essere un’esperienza desiderabile, un legame con il bambino che normalmente viene negato ad un maschio: le donne sono culturalmente predestinate a questo tipo di intimità, e il padre ne è tradizionalmente escluso. È possibile per i maschi “allenarsi” all’allattamento? Dovremmo forse pensare a un futuro più eterogeneo riguardo a questo aspetto dello svezzamento? Un bambino allattato indifferentemente da mamma e papà potrebbe crescere più sano e felice?