Summary: Religion, sexual ethics, and the politics of belonging: Young Muslims
and Christians in the Netherlands. – Beekers & Schrijfers.
Shunita Gerritsen (2021)
Core of text:
In political discourse oftentimes Muslims are portrayed as being fundamentally different from secular
(european society) especially in the area of sexuality. There are concerns about different ideals of sexuality,
sexual emancipation and gender relations. In this discourse the dutch liberal -progressive sexual ideal is
stated as opposite of restrictive-conservative sexual ideal of Muslims. Thereby questioning their integration
and belonging to the moral nation. However in this article a comparison is made between dutch Christians
and Muslims in the Netherlands, and the authors conclude that most sentiments about sexuality are very
similar between these two groups, and that generally Christians are more openly critical of secular sexual
society than Muslims. Thus you can conclude that the ‘danger’ of Muslims concerning their different sexual
ideals is highly politicized and overstated for a political purpose (of spreading fear, anti-Islam and anti-
migration sentiments) rather than simply reflecting reality. Culturalization of citizenship* should include not
only religion but ethnicity and race, as positionality plays an important role of how people relate to dominant
sexual roles.
*citizenship before was more based on being free within a nation while belonging to a political group (the state) these days it
continues to be more related to national identity and thus moral belonging (“ you can only be a citizen if you fit the (mythical)
national norms”)
Methods:
Beekers: Interviews and participant observation with Christians and Muslims, not specifically centered
around sexuality. Most born into religion.
Schrijfer: Participant observation with woman who converted to Pentecostalism or Sunni Islam. Most dutch
white descent
Note: there are differences in research sites and initial research thematic emphasis
Comparison on three main topics:
-ethical discourse on sex and sexual practice¹
-views on homosexuality²
-encounters with explicit sexuality in public sphere³
1. Ethical discourse on sex and sexual practice
-Genrally muslims where more closed when talking about sexuality, most focus was on sin and ritual
(regarding getting rid of sin) and talks where kept quite private
-Christians where open when talking about sexuality and ideals and encouraged sharing of experience and
sin
-converted muslims where a bit more open than born Muslims
-Big difference between the groups is gender segregation in Islam. Muslims discussed their difficulty when
navigating between their own ideals of segregation (not touching opposite gender, not being alone in room
with opposite gender that isn’t family etc.) and fitting in to dominant social norms for example in the
workplace. Many made a distinction in their behavior when interacting with Muslims and non-Muslims.
2. views on homosexuality
-Both groups viewed homosexual desires as okay (‘not your own fault’) as long as a person does not act on
it; it was sometimes viewed as admirable that a gay religious person chose to live in celibacy
-both groups had different standards for secular people versus people from their own religious group: while
they say that they would remind a fellow believer of their sexual ethics if they where to show ‘homosexual
behavior’ they did not criticize it in non-believers
-Converts who usually came from a background where homosexuality was accepted often struggled with
changing their views
and Christians in the Netherlands. – Beekers & Schrijfers.
Shunita Gerritsen (2021)
Core of text:
In political discourse oftentimes Muslims are portrayed as being fundamentally different from secular
(european society) especially in the area of sexuality. There are concerns about different ideals of sexuality,
sexual emancipation and gender relations. In this discourse the dutch liberal -progressive sexual ideal is
stated as opposite of restrictive-conservative sexual ideal of Muslims. Thereby questioning their integration
and belonging to the moral nation. However in this article a comparison is made between dutch Christians
and Muslims in the Netherlands, and the authors conclude that most sentiments about sexuality are very
similar between these two groups, and that generally Christians are more openly critical of secular sexual
society than Muslims. Thus you can conclude that the ‘danger’ of Muslims concerning their different sexual
ideals is highly politicized and overstated for a political purpose (of spreading fear, anti-Islam and anti-
migration sentiments) rather than simply reflecting reality. Culturalization of citizenship* should include not
only religion but ethnicity and race, as positionality plays an important role of how people relate to dominant
sexual roles.
*citizenship before was more based on being free within a nation while belonging to a political group (the state) these days it
continues to be more related to national identity and thus moral belonging (“ you can only be a citizen if you fit the (mythical)
national norms”)
Methods:
Beekers: Interviews and participant observation with Christians and Muslims, not specifically centered
around sexuality. Most born into religion.
Schrijfer: Participant observation with woman who converted to Pentecostalism or Sunni Islam. Most dutch
white descent
Note: there are differences in research sites and initial research thematic emphasis
Comparison on three main topics:
-ethical discourse on sex and sexual practice¹
-views on homosexuality²
-encounters with explicit sexuality in public sphere³
1. Ethical discourse on sex and sexual practice
-Genrally muslims where more closed when talking about sexuality, most focus was on sin and ritual
(regarding getting rid of sin) and talks where kept quite private
-Christians where open when talking about sexuality and ideals and encouraged sharing of experience and
sin
-converted muslims where a bit more open than born Muslims
-Big difference between the groups is gender segregation in Islam. Muslims discussed their difficulty when
navigating between their own ideals of segregation (not touching opposite gender, not being alone in room
with opposite gender that isn’t family etc.) and fitting in to dominant social norms for example in the
workplace. Many made a distinction in their behavior when interacting with Muslims and non-Muslims.
2. views on homosexuality
-Both groups viewed homosexual desires as okay (‘not your own fault’) as long as a person does not act on
it; it was sometimes viewed as admirable that a gay religious person chose to live in celibacy
-both groups had different standards for secular people versus people from their own religious group: while
they say that they would remind a fellow believer of their sexual ethics if they where to show ‘homosexual
behavior’ they did not criticize it in non-believers
-Converts who usually came from a background where homosexuality was accepted often struggled with
changing their views
