Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, which is fine according to our rules.

However, since your title is quite short: may I suggest re-wording your question for example to 'What is the context of this NSFW picture which apparently comes from a Turkish manuscript from 1773?' and re-submitting it - this way you would be more likely to get an answer.

edit to add: Turkish erotica isn't my forte, so I'll mention something that isn't as eye-catching in this work: the hats. The ten figures in this piece are wearing red skullcaps, or tarbouz. Before the fez became official headgear in the 19th century (see here for the policy preferring the fez over the turban), janissaries wore a turban to signify their social stature, but for labor-intensive duties, the tarbouz was a more utilitarian option. (See the images "stoning" from I Turchi. Codex Vindobonensis 8626 ; see Fig 7 from Richardson, 2012 "The Coverings of an Empire: An Examination of Ottoman Headgear from 1500 to 1829")

@@@@@@@@@

This picture most likely entered public awareness as part of the art exhibition "Seduced: Art & Sex from Antiquity to Now", that ran from 2007 to 2008 at the Barbican Centre in London. Or it may have been scanned from the companion book of the same name.

In any case, the image is from a 209-leaf manuscript whose eventual sale at auction in April 2018 attracted some news coverage. The auction catalog note credits the author as Shaykh Muhammad ibn Mustafa al-Misri. The work is called Tuhfet ul-Mulk (a Turkish translation of Ruju al-shaykh ila sibah, ‘A Shaykh remembers his youth’). It is from Turkey or the Balkans, dated 1817 BCE.

"The contents of the text are summed up by a free translation of the title ‘A Shaykh remembers his youth’, namely a collection of fanciful reminiscences of the adventures and romances of an inquisitive man. Although the name of the patron is not included, it is clear from the quality and quantity of miniature paintings that this manuscript was commissioned by a member of the nobility, who carefully edited the text and possibly is portrayed in some paintings. Three dates are present in the manuscript, 1187 AH (1779 AD), 1214 AH (1799-80 AD) and 1232 AH (1817 AD), indicating that the manuscript took many years to complete and was carefully edited. "

Art historian Julian Raby writes for the catalog note:

Erotic literature was usually accompanied by more or less explicit paintings, whose degree of graphicness depended on the period in which they were produced – Ottoman society was fairly permissive in the sixteenth century, more conservative in the seventeenth, and quite liberal in the eighteenth – so manuscripts produced in this last period show vibrant and explicit scenes, sometimes of the finest nature.

... This manuscript combines both vellum and paper, making it an incredibly rare and expensive production for its time. The use of vellum for all the paintings is quite an unusual choice and deserves further commentary. As a material, vellum is not the ideal choice for painting; it retains colors less and is more likely to get damaged on the verso. Considered an expensive and out-of-the-ordinary material for the time, one may understand why vellum was chosen to illustrate this manuscript, signalling its importance.

Although there is no dedication or named patron, we can infer from the size, use of expensive materials and quality of the miniatures, that this manuscript was reserved for the very high end of the market. Despite the fact that little is known about who read and used these manuals, several versions of the same text have survived, leading us to the conclusion that there was demand at different levels of society (with varying budgets). As noted by Shick[6], this manuscript is too accomplished to be a unique creation, but it is probably the top example of its kind.

The text has been written by more than one hand and completed at various stages: on f.205a two years are mentioned: one (in red) bears the date 1 Muharram 1187 AH (25 March 1779) and the city of Shumna (today Shumen, in north-east Bulgaria). This date refers to the completion of the first translation of the text Tuhfat al-Mulk, but it is not the final one.

...

To understand fully the context in which these paintings were produced, it is necessary to note that gender was not considered a dichotomy in Ottoman Turkey[11]. Three distinctive groups need to be identified when talking about sexuality: men, women, and male youths. The man is at the centre of the encounter most of the time, but there are occasions where only male youths or women are the principal protagonists. As noted by Shick, there is fluidity in gender: youths will become men, and the main distinction within a sexual act lies between who is passive and who is active. Heterosexual and homosexual (mainly male) scenes are both present in equal number, and often the encounter is interrupted or supervised by other people.

Further reading:

• Artan T. and Schick C. “Ottomanizing pornotopia: Changing visual codes in eighteen century Ottoman Erotic miniatures” in Leoni F. and Natif M. (ed.), Eros and Sexuality in Islamic Art, Farnham, 2013. https://www.academia.edu/4645382/Ottomanizing_Pornotopia_Changing_Visual_Codes_in_Eighteenth-Century_Ottoman_Erotic_Miniatures

• Schick I. C., “Representation of Gender and Sexuality in Ottoman and Turkish Literature” in The Turkish Studies Association Journal, Vol. 2, N.1-2 (2004), pp.81-203. https://www.academia.edu/7074013/Representation_of_Gender_and_Sexuality_in_Ottoman_and_Turkish_Erotic_Literature

If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy.

In this case, we are largely removing comments for being:

• remarks on the comments being removed (the vast majority)

• someone's brief impression of what the image might be

• the result of a Google Image Search, posted as a large block quote

None of these are appropriate for AskHistorians.

Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only [removed], but we thank you for your patience. If you want to be reminded to come check back later, or simply find other great content to read while you wait, this thread provides a guide to a number of ways to do so, including the RemindMeBot- Click Here to Subscribe - or our Twitter.

If anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!