Hooriaband 1

Seyed Hamed Hooriaband

Professor Chris Clancy

ARCH 47

May 12, 2019

Term Paper

Buildings Have Sex Too

The question is not whether buildings were conceived based on human sexuality,

it is the why and the how. In today’s world, much of the architecture stems from the

primitive hut era. An era where humans sought practical and simplistic sources to draw

concepts from. Due to the primitive human’s reclusiveness nature –anatomical and

biological needs – became their main reference. At the heart of all human need is the

procreation. Naturally, the primitive humans were inspired by human sexuality, especially

the reproductive organs. However, with the speeding sprout of technological

advancements sources of inspiration expanded. Yet, at the core of architecture, human

sexuality – specifically male sexuality – remains erect on the foundations of most works

of architecture. In his book ‘Building Sex’, Aaron Betsky, defines most structures as

prisons of “Femininity and the façades of masculinity” (xix) due to masculine dominance

in the design process of architecture. He identifies attributes in the structure, massing,

façade, separation of spaces and voids in the interior, ornamentation, as well as, city

planning.
 Hooriaband 2

As with any creator the humans created the world they live in in their own image.

The primitive architect designed and built according to its perception of how they were

embodied within their own habitat. Hence, the primitive man created a world – omitting

the presence of any other sex –fit for men; instinctively, they used the most important

element of their environment as a source of inspiration: the male sex organ. Psychiatrist

Erik Erikson notes: “In the male, an external organ, erectable and intrusive in character,

serving the channelization of mobile sperm cells: internal organs in the female, with

vestibular access, leading to statically expectant ova." (3) It is understandable why many

of primitive structures have been erected like shafts. The best instances of these

structures would be monoliths that have been extruded from the ground in ancient times

known as Menhir. The images below demonstrate a perfect example of how architecture

has evolved less in design concept and more in materials and construction technology.

The following structures are millennia apart, yet the resemblance is uncanny – they are

both made to represent an external organ erected to demonstrate male dominance.

MENHIR DE CHAMP-DOLENT, FRANCE LOTTE WORLD TOWER, SEOUL

The way nature has evolved to work is somewhat similar to the female sexual

organ rather than that of the male. The womb, an organ that is naturally enclosed and

seeks to nurture. It is literally an incubation chamber that allows for the evolution of a

species. Whereas the penis is a protruding organ that ejaculates further than its physical

reach; always seeking to extend outwards – like a mechanical tool. Essentially, the womb

creates an interior space where the purpose is to nurture and nourish the occupant.

CROSS SECTION OF A WOMB WITH A 3MONTH OLD BABY

CROSS SECTION OF ENGORGED MALE PENIS

In some vicarious way, the sexuality of the architect shapes all our cities. In an

overview of the world of architecture today, it is easy to spot the gender on any erected

structure. Winston Churchill once said: “We shape our buildings and our buildings shape
 Hooriaband 4

us,” in this case it is the sexuality of the architect that shapes buildings; those buildings in

turn shape cities – societies. This could possibly be the very reason for the divide between

the spaces and the sexes. For instance, the home – much like the womb is a place of

nurture and protection - the hearth that was at the epicenter of social life in the hut era. In

the evolved man’s architecture history, one can see that hearth has been translated into

the kitchen. Purposed to bring together or have people circle around the dinner table.

With the design concept that best would represent the female of our species. Excluding

her from all design aspects related to the shell she dwells within. women would only make

sense to be more undulating and curved, almost as if it is wrapping around the habitant

in a masculine façade.

The division of human sexes is significant because it starts at an early age.

Children of the male sex tend to be architects of their own worlds. As soon as they

understand what there is to expect in various spaces of their house, boys would start

building their own dwellings; in forms of castles, hideouts, and caves. Aaron Betsky

describes this manifestation as boys deviating from their “Maternal embrace” (4) in order

to dominate the world they play in. As for the girls, the experience is completely different

in that they are looking to recreate a nurturing and safe interior space. They start by

reinforcing the bond that they have with their mother and recreating it into their own

relationships as well. The girl “Makes a domestic universe” living in what is a mere “Mirror

of the architecture that surrounds her.”(4)

This evokes the idea that girls maybe more related to nature than boys are due to

her ability to give birth – make life. In the book ‘Building Sex’, Camilia Paglia argues that

man is the artificial being trying to recreate nature in his own image.; This is given to the
 Hooriaband 5

fact that men fear all that is natural about women. They fear the wild chthonic abilities of

nature, which can destruct all the sophisticated manmade erections regardless of their

size; the remnants of Pompei are a perfect example among a plethora of other instances

we have had in recent history. To that effect, Arron Betsky writes: “The foundation of

human culture is a porous circle marked out in the landscape that turns the continuum of

nature into a place where artifacts are created.” (9)

There has always been a search for compromise – a middle ground. In this age of

neutrality and wokeness we have tried impartiality and detachment from biology and in

some cases science all together. However, the primitive ancestors came up with a middle

ground – in the most literal of forms: The Mandala! A depiction which commemorates the

idea of the campground in the form of the “Sacred symbol.” Based on the Ancient History

Encyclopedia: “The word mandala is a Sanskrit term that means ‘circle’ or ‘discoid object’.

A mandala can be defined in two ways: externally as a schematic visual representation

of the universe;” in reality it represents the core idea behind the campground – the sacred

hearth at the center of the symbol – in various cultures the center was exchanged with

deities.

MANDALA MANDALA
 Hooriaband 6

This mandala like ground is not vertical like the shaft of the penis, nor does it hide

an entrance into a void like that of a vagina. Hence, “there is no inside or outside” for

there to be any correlation between the male or the female; there is no abject division

between the behaviors and placements of the sexes. Albeit the campground form that

creates no division between the sexes, “Some anthropologists have argued”, due to child

rearing and feeding, this was the birthplace of architecture and matriarchy. In short, the

mandala overthrows the power balance and brings it closer to the hearth. It does not call

for a conqueror, it requires a nurturer. Therefore, even though it might not physically

represent a particular sex, its context empowers women.

The mandala is a historic artifact that best represents the initial stages of

architecture before it was divided among the sexes. Gottfried Semper notes: "The

beginning of buildings [architecture] coincides with the beginning of textiles." There were

primitive and savage tribes who appear to understand how clothing or covering one’s own

body worked. They applied that same technique to "Covering their encampments"; this

called for the developments of techniques such as spinning plaiting and weaving or

furnishing. For instance, the tent of nomads who were used to being mobile and migrating

from point to point based on their natures climactic changes was an architecture that

made a mesh of both the penis and the womb. it was neither a projection nor an enclosure

- it was both. It also blended the natural landscape with the manmade partition. In its

primitive form, it was not a dividing wall between the sexes, it was only inhibiting nature

from intruding in human space. (p14) It has the shape of an inverted loose basket with

the projection of a pole holding it up. In its entirety – if seen at a section – resembles

something more natural than before: the penetration of a penis into a vagina.
 Hooriaband 7

SECTION OF A VAGINA BEING PENETRATED

COMPARED TO THE POLE IN THE TENT

In ‘Building Sex’, Elizabeth Weatherford describes the tent and pole shape of a

dwelling as “flexible with translucent light ... round, ovoid or conical, with no edges or

planes to interrupt the flow of space. Their size and shape maximize physical and

psychological contact among the dwellers.” Since the household of this type of dwelling

overflowed outward "into the outdoor space" it allowed for the inhabitants to expand their

activities. In today’s architectural terminology the house or interiors could be defined as

fluid and continuous.

Children were not prompted to stay with their parents, they could stay with any

elder of the camp regardless of their sexes; they were also not confined to one sex group.
 Hooriaband 8

Women were part of the building process and not only its beneficiaries. To erect a dwelling

as such all the human power necessary was used at every stage - no order or hierarchy

of skillsets were implemented. the building and designing activity were in a way ritualistic,

hence part of everyone’s knowledge base and passed down as tradition from one to the

other. (p15)

Contrary to Elizabeth Weatherford, Abe Marc Antoine Laugier believed that the

primitive hut was the first human made enclosure. For him architecture only started at the

moment there was a roof in place. He did not accept other enclosed spaces as

architecture which was the "act of the willful imposition of order by a man" (p16) on his

dominion: nature and women. Clearly, he cares less about roofing and more about

submission. This idea only defines humans as a species looking to break from nature

without consideration for all the liens – food, protection, sex. It creates an abstract

foundation for architecture and today’s society, which explains why much of what we see

in the history of architecture seems to be disconnected with our species and out of place.

Historically, early civilizations had the divide in the sexes in such a manner that

cities were "warlike places of patriarchy" set out to dominate the world. At the bottom of

the Ziggurat in Ur were women used as "religious prostitutes" by the "mysoginist priests"

who in turn legitimized the power of the king, who was loyal only to the gods. These cities

were built in forms of fortresses from other dominant male kings serving a god. Hence, in

such cities one is bound to see the existence of structures built upwards towards the sky

(heavens) inching closer to the divine power of gods; or even machines that make god –

such as the pyramids, which were edifices that were supposed to turn a pharos into a
 Hooriaband 9

deity. This was the case for cities of Mesopotamia from Ur in 2230 B.C. to Khorsabad -

almost a thousand years later. When myths about the chthonic women and subterranean

gods came about. However, this wasn't always the case. In 6000 B.C. Turkey, the Catal

Huyuk were nomadic building types that lacked the artificial higherarchy placed by male

dominance. The round city formed around the hearth or kitchen with no grand public

spaces and only an "accumulation of private spaces"; religion was domesticated, and

families gathered in a communal form of living. Another instance is the Knossos palace

city (municipality) where spaces were designed "with little regard for its exterior

appearance, for overall order, or for defense." It should be noted that both cities were

ruled by Matriarchies. (p23)

Marx believed the division between the sexes starts at the same point in history

when humans decided to separate themselves from nature through agriculture. When

humans became an agrarian civilization, they started cutting nature into territories and

stockpiling crops, in other words they "stratified space." This allowed for natural spaces

to dissolve underneath the manmade territories. In addition, crops started losing their

value to the "transformation wrought on them by human labor." Marx said that the value

of crop has transitioned from its source - land - into its stockpile. Hence breaking the

"flexible flow of nomadic landscape into flows of capital.” Friedrich Engels, also concurs

that the "emergence of this stratified space coincided with the submission of women to

men." Therefore, it is no secret to any part of the architectural or even non-architectural

history that sexes were divided when their common shared space – hearth or campfire –

was dissected into systematically by man’s obsession with his own sexuality and mortal

powers.
 Hooriaband 10

Built in a country that had fallen to Pharaonic power after the demise of a few

queens, Egypt became the birthplace for these "ultimate expressions of power" in the

form of "useless monuments for the dead males.". These monuments were created in a

scale that benefited no man. It defied and denied any contact to its landscape or nature.

Its sole purpose was to replicate a "mental picture of perfection" for a man looking to

ascent into the heavens - a non human world.

THE SPHINX

Similarly, in todays perverted architecture, we have CEO offices at the far end

corner of a building erected in the shape of a penis acting as a fortress (corporation,

bank,) or a tactical head quarter; in such places space is waste. And much like the ever-

watchful Sphinx, the tomb like offices of these CEO’s are watched over by a hybrid

feminine businesswomen / secretary – tamed by a glass ceiling. Of course, these

monuments are watched over by none other than a half female - half animal creature:
 Hooriaband 11

The Sphinx. A creature that embodies all that is mysterious about the female: “the powers

to menstruate and to give life. Its existence could also serve as a reminder for future

generations of kings and pharaohs that if not tamed, this creature could rule once

again!”(27)

QUEEN HATSHEPSUT TOMB

On that note, it is almost anecdotal that in all of Egypt, the place of Queen

Hatshepsut (Circa 1480 B.C.) is the only one buried partially in a mountain. It is guarded

by hypostyle hall and has a urethra like ramp that goes deep into what can only be the

cervix of the tomb; it is literally where the mummified body of Queen Hatshepsut resides.

The tower is the most recurring symbol in architecture that demonstrates the

dominance of man over nature. The phallic structure comes in the form of silos,

minarets/spires, and skyscrapers. It is conceived in a way that is meant to break apart

from its habitat; stand out as the symbol of wealth accumulation and dominance. This has

been the case for centuries, however, today we know that our bodies are what we make

of them. Science has not made it easy to clearly distinguish between the differences of

men and women, especially in times where gender neutrality and queerness has found

its own place in society. It is potentially the prime time for the structures which bound us

to nature - earth - to represent values that bind us to society. A bathroom does not

instantly become gender neutral just because you have a sign on the door that says so.

It is truly gender neutral when the discriminations are taken out of its brick and mortar.