This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mesoamerica (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

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 ;)

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

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

The sources that Greenberg give for his claims about Xōchipilli are Eric Thompson’s The Rise and Fall of the Maya Civilization and a 1987 dissertation from Taylor, El Ambiente: Male Homosexual Life in Mexico City. The former does not say anything about homosexuality (AFAIK) and the latter does make the claim that “in her male aspect, Xochipilli, she was worshipped as deity of male homosexuality and male prostitution”, however does not cite anything for this. So we can rule out Greenberg as a reliable source, same with Cassells Encyclopedia Of Queer Myth, Symbol, And Spirit Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, And Transgender Lore as it directly cites Greenberg.

The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality does make the claim about Xōchipilli being the patron of gay men and male prostitutes, but doesn't actually provide any sources for the claim. It does quote Bernal Díaz del Castillo, however the quote was for a completely different came unrelated to Xochipilli. The quote is as follows: "the sons of chiefs, they did not take women, but followed the bad practices of sodomy". It was to prove that homosexuality was prominent is what is now Vera Cruz rather than to prove anything about Xochipilli.

I don't have the time to read Sex and Conquest: Gendered Violence, Political Order, and the European Conquest of the Americas, in full, but I used the search feature on Google Books to search for any mention of Xochipilli and got no results. The only thing I got was one mention of Xochiquetzal, so I don't know whether or not that book even touches on this subject.

The Aztec Image in Western Thought does mention Xochipilli but does not call him the god of homosexuality or male prostitutes.

Riddle of the Pyramids seems completely irrelevant, though it does briefly mention homosexuality among the Aztec.

An Aztec Two-Spirit Cosmology: Re-sounding Nahuatl Masculinities, Elders, Femininities, and Youth straight up does not say anything about Xochipilli.

Male Homosexuality in Central and South America's section about this deity was written by the same person who wrote El Ambiente: Male Homosexual Life in Mexico City. Clark Louis Taylor claims his research was made possible by grants from the Department of Anthropology and Center for Latin American Studies. Again, he does not cite his source for the claim.

I am not aware of any reliable source on this topic, whether it is a real obscure folk tradition that never got recorded or if it's just straight up fabrication. However I think it's best to remove the citations that have nothing to do with it Sleepieweather (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

The use of the word "patron" deserves a bit of elaboration. Is this meant to be similar to the Orthodox and Catholic sense of "patron saint", such as "patron saint of X"? Pete unseth (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply