The notion that a white enslaver could be “attracted” to an enslaved person described as “dirty, smelly” and unwashed—conditions often resulting from the brutal realities of slavery—requires a careful examination of the dynamics of power, control, and dehumanization, rather than attraction in the modern sense of mutual desire. Sexual violence against enslaved people, including men, was a common feature of slavery in the Americas (the United States, the Caribbean, and Brazil), but it was not primarily driven by conventional sexual attraction. Instead, it was rooted in the enslaver’s ability to exert absolute dominance over a dehumanized “other.” Below, I explore how such dynamics operated, why physical conditions like dirtiness or lack of hygiene were irrelevant to the act, and the psychological and social factors at play.
1. Power and Dehumanization Over Attraction
In the context of slavery, sexual violence was not about romantic or aesthetic attraction but about reinforcing racial and social hierarchies. Enslaved people were stripped of autonomy, forced to labor under inhumane conditions, and often denied necessities like clean water, clothing, or time for personal hygiene. The description of a “dirty, smelly slave” reflects the deliberate neglect and degradation imposed by the slave system, where enslaved individuals might go days or weeks without bathing due to lack of access or opportunity.
For enslavers, the physical state of an enslaved person—whether clean or unwashed—was secondary to their status as property. Historical accounts, such as those in Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845), describe how enslavers viewed enslaved people as objects to be controlled, not as individuals with inherent dignity. Sexual violence, including rape, was a tool to assert dominance, humiliate, and emasculate, particularly in the case of enslaved men. The act was not about the enslaver finding the enslaved person desirable in a conventional sense but about exploiting their vulnerability.
The “attraction” in this context was likely due to the power dynamic itself. The ability to violate someone society deemed inferior, regardless of their physical condition, reinforced the enslaver’s sense of supremacy. Scholars like Thomas A. Foster in Rethinking Rufus (2019) argue that sexual violence against enslaved men was a way to “unman” them, aligning with the broader goal of subjugation. Dirtiness or odor, far from being a deterrent, may have even heightened the sense of degradation for the enslaver, as it underscored the enslaved person’s lack of agency and humanity in their eyes.
2. Psychological Factors: Fetishization of the “Other”
While attraction as we understand it today (based on mutual affection or aesthetic appeal) was not the primary driver, some enslavers may have exhibited a form of fetishization rooted in racial and cultural stereotypes. Enslaved people were often exoticized as “savage” or “primitive” in the white imagination, a trope that persisted in colonial literature and art. This fetishization could extend to their physical state, where dirtiness or lack of hygiene was seen as part of their “natural” or “animalistic” condition, reinforcing racist ideologies.
For example, in the Caribbean and Brazil, where plantation labor was grueling and sanitation facilities were minimal, enslaved people were often described in dehumanizing terms by white observers. Travelogues from the 18th century, such as those by British planter Bryan Edwards, depict enslaved Africans as “uncivilized” and “filthy,” yet these same accounts reveal enslavers’ willingness to exploit them sexually. The contradiction suggests that the enslaved person’s physical condition was not a barrier but part of the racialized fantasy that justified abuse.
Psychologically, some enslavers may have derived gratification from transgressing social norms (e.g., engaging in same-sex acts, which were taboo) while maintaining their authority. The “dirty” state of an enslaved person could amplify this sense of transgression, as it further distanced the act from socially acceptable forms of desire. However, this was not about homosexuality as an identity but about the thrill of dominance and violation.
3. Hygiene and Context: The Reality of Slavery
The description of an enslaved person as “dirty” or “smelly” must be contextualized within the brutal conditions of slavery. Enslaved people were often forced to work long hours in fields, mills, or mines, with no access to clean water, soap, or time for personal care. In the U.S. South, for instance, enslaved people on large plantations might share cramped quarters with no sanitation facilities, as documented in plantation records and archaeological studies of slave cabins. In Brazil and the Caribbean, tropical climates and intense labor exacerbated these conditions.
Enslavers, by contrast, had access to better hygiene and often lived in starkly different conditions. Yet, their interactions with enslaved people were not deterred by these disparities. Historical evidence, such as court records from 19th-century Louisiana, occasionally references sexual violence against enslaved men in contexts where their physical state was described as degraded, suggesting that hygiene was irrelevant to the act. The enslaver’s power allowed them to overlook or even exploit these conditions as part of the violence.
4. Same-Sex Violence and Cultural Taboos
A white enslaver raping an enslaved man, implying a homosexual act. As discussed in my previous response, same-sex sexual violence did occur, though it was less documented due to cultural stigmas around homosexuality. Enslavers could engage in such acts with impunity because enslaved men had no legal recourse, and the acts were framed as domination, not desire. The “dirtiness” of the enslaved person likely played no role in deterring the act, as the enslaver’s motivation was control, not mutual attraction.
The degraded physical state of an enslaved person could serve to further distance the act from any accusation of homosexuality, which was heavily stigmatized in European and American societies. By targeting someone society deemed inferior and “unclean,” the enslaver could maintain a psychological separation from the taboo of same-sex desire, even as they committed the act.
5. Broader Implications
The idea that an enslaver could be “attracted” to a “dirty, smelly slave” underscores the perverse logic of slavery, where human beings were reduced to objects of exploitation. This dynamic challenges modern assumptions about attraction, which are often tied to cleanliness, consent, and mutual respect. In slavery, these concepts were absent, replaced by a system where power dictated all interactions.
The suggestion that such acts reflect a broader “homosexual culture” (as raised in your original query) is not supported by historical evidence, as same-sex violence was not an endorsement of homosexuality but a manifestation of abuse. The normalization of homosexuality in modern times, as discussed previously, stems from unrelated social and political developments, not from slavery’s legacy.
A white enslaver’s ability to sexually violate an enslaved person, regardless of their “dirty” or “smelly” condition, was not about conventional attraction but about power, dehumanization, and control. The brutal conditions of slavery, where enslaved people were denied hygiene and dignity, only amplified their vulnerability to abuse. Dirtiness or lack of bathing was irrelevant to the enslaver’s actions, as the act was driven by the desire to dominate, not by mutual desire or aesthetic appeal. In some cases, the enslaved person’s degraded state may have even reinforced the enslaver’s sense of superiority or fetishization of racial “otherness.” Understanding these dynamics requires separating modern notions of attraction from the violent realities of slavery, where power trumped all other considerations.