Peterson 1

Homosexuality: With Acceptance Comes Heterosexuality

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," then President of Iran
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said at a speech to Columbia University students in 2007. Despite
his misguided beliefs about homosexuality and direct evidence of homosexual males in
Iran, Ahmadinejad sparked the widespread popular media uncovering of the true history of
homosexuality in the world. It has existed as far back as the creation of modern
civilizations: ancient Greece, Rome, China, etc. It exists in every country in the world today
albeit in varying levels of acceptance and form and is practiced ritualistically in Melanesia,
a subregion of Oceania in the Pacific Ocean. Where and in which forms does homosexuality
exist in the current world either as a result or a manifestation of ancient practice? Do
people care about homosexuality insofar as it is an isolated act or is it the threat of social
destruction due to exclusive homosexuality that causes societal problems? This paper
seeks to prove that past and current societies have accepted and encouraged
homosexuality but only on the precondition that heterosexual relations and procreation
must accompany it. As long as a parent or spouse is fulfilling his duties to procreate and to
his family unit, generally same-sex sexual relationships have been commonplace, turned a
blind eye, idealized and even romanticized.
In Ancient China, male homosexuality dates to the Shang Dynasty from the sixteenth
to eleventh centuries BC. Of the 11 emperors during the Western Han era (206 BC 8 AD),
10 had at least one male lover or expressed homosexual tendencies. The Chinese phrase
sharing the remaining peach, a romantic symbol of male love, refers to a story when King
Lings (534 493 BC) lover found a peach in the palaces garden so sweet that he saved half
Peterson 2
of it for the king. Various forms of literature exist that glorify homosexuality all the way
from the sixteenth century BC until the Song Dynasty (960 1279 AD). While the
glorification of male homosexuality did exist, it existed only under certain conditions. The
attention awarded to romantic, but not monogamous male-male relationships was not
awarded to monogamous, exclusive homosexual relationships. Herein lies the biggest
difference: dynasties continued when kings passed on their traits through procreation i.e.
heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Kings often had scores of lovers and rarely remained
committed to the same one or even the same gender. A king had to produce children and
continue his bloodline, and as long as these obligations were met, he had full freedom,
support, and encouragement to pursue any sexual relationship he desired.
However, after the Song Dynasty (960-1279AD), homosexually became condemned
and lost its glorification and social significance and acceptance. People now face
imprisonment for homosexuality. A physics teacher in China was sentenced to 5 years in
prison in September 1983 for his consensual homosexual acts. It must be noted that he was
not married, and participated solely in exclusive, homosexual relationships. He did not
pursue or take part in a procreative relationship. Men in China are not persecuted for
adultery with men, but they are persecuted for exclusive homosexual relationships. It can
be argued that if he were, the sentence would not have been as cruel and perhaps may have
been overlooked. In a letter to the editor of a widely circulated health magazine that
published an article titled Homosexuality: The Unsolved Puzzle, a teacher wrote
Homosexuality will destroy our society It is imperative that we expose homosexuality
Peterson 3
lest it create a flood that sweeps away our marital, legal, and moral code. The author of
these words here is referring to exclusive, monogamous homosexuality, not simple same-
sex sexual acts; this exclusivity can alter a marital code and legal code not simple
homosexuality. Adultery breaks a marital code regardless of the gender of the person who
commits this immoral act, not homosexuality in general. The problem lies in the
possibilities of social change due to exclusive, lifelong homosexual relationships as opposed
to men having nonexclusive same-sex intercourse.
Similarly, ancient Japan witnessed courtly homosexuality most famously and
notably in The Tale of Genji, an eleventh century piece of literature containing a passage in
which Prince Genji engages in sexual intercourse with the brother of a woman who rejected
his sexual advances. Samurai warriors took on younger male lovers and during times of
war would even keep them in close proximity. In Buddhist monasteries, a typical
relationship consisted of older monks assuming responsibility for a younger acolytes
religious education in exchange for romantic intimacy. Social historian Gary Leupp stated
that during the long medieval epoch (1185 1868), most people would have inquired
not why a given man had taken male lovers but rather why he had not done so (p.69).
These trends of the literate, upper echelons of society made homosexual male
intercourse acceptable in modern times. Male bisexuality and extra marital affairs have
become the accepted norm. As long as a man fulfills his first duty to his family and
reproduces through a heterosexual marriage, he may pursue, like the kings of ancient
China, any sexual relationship. Despite this, there remains no place for exclusively
Peterson 4
homosexual males or females in Japanese society as it is mandatory to continue the
artificial bisexuality that allows one to explore and fulfill his sexual desires within the guise
of marriage and procreating. Furthermore, the idea of a sexual spectrum existed in the
recent past, allowing one the true sexual freedom of expression. Conditioned on fulfilling
familial obligations, a man did not have to renounce non-procreative sexual proclivities.
Homosexual relations were (and largely remain) irrelevant in Japan, because they did not
disrupt family and descent (P. 75). To pinpoint possible points of discrimination of
homosexuals in other countries, Leupp adds, homosexuality escapes the scrutiny and
stigma of obscenity because it does not explicitly challenge reproduction and the family (at
least according to Japanese customs and perspectives) (p.75). In sum, Japanese society
allows men and women to pursue extramarital homosexuality, precisely because it is
extramarital. There exists no problem or even the strict identification of hetero, bi, or
homo, because such little attention is paid to ones sexuality insofar as one is in a
heterosexual marriage, producing children.
The Kimam tribe of Papua New Guinea practices age-stratified, ritualized male-male
intercourse, hinging on their belief of the powers of semen. For example, to combat an
epidemic breaking out, the people of the village covered themselves with sperm for
protection. Any sperm lost to intercourse is seen as a loss of vitality and sexual intercourse
is banned before major expenditures of energy such as wrestling or hunting due to the
powerful potential of sperm. In the Kimam tribe, yams are the most revered and important
food in their diet. Oftentimes the most successful yam grower has the most power in the
Peterson 5
society. The secret ingredient to growing yams is magic, which is contained within semen.
Semen not only contains magical powers but is also the source of masculinity, which the
Kimam believe must be passed down in order to grow a boy into a man. The rites of
passage by which a boy becomes a man are strict, discrete steps. A boy starts as a novice,
graduating to man over the course of 4 years. In order to gain masculinity, he receives
sperm from an older male mentor paired specifically to him. The yam sorcerer and heads of
the village provide sperm to put on the novice (boy) by engaging in sexual intercourse with
the betrothed of the novices mentor and then rubbing it on the novice. The sperm of the
sorcerer and heads of the village is too potent to be passed directly on to the novice and so
it is smeared onto him after having sexual intercourse with a woman. Then the novice and
the mentor, who has lesser masculine power, have direct homosexual intercourse. The
sperm of the mentor is not too potent and so he directly enters his sperm into the novice.
Once the novice reaches the next stage of initiation by acquiring enough semen and thus
masculinity, he ceases to be inseminated and now starts inseminating new novices. In this
way, males control the growth of other men.
It must be noted and emphasized that none of this same-sex intercourse involves
individual choice and the level of sexual interest on both novice and mentor is given zero
weight. Regardless of ones sexual orientation or level of gratification in participating in
same-sex intercourse, the act will be done for as long and as frequently as is dictated by
social norms pertaining to initiation rites. Furthermore there exists no data that indicates
the occurrence of non-ritualized same-sex intercourse; men do not participate in exclusive
Peterson 6
homosexual relationships. After the ritualized acts take place and a boy becomes a man, he
is expected to and participates in a heterosexual marriage. For these reasons, these acts are
not considered homosexual, but rather same-sex intercourse. The basis of the sex is to
grow youth, not for love, comfort, or emotional intimacy. Furthermore, this same-sex
intercourse takes place strictly within the context of a heterosexual culture that mandates
procreative sex. This ritualized same-sex behavior based on the unique view of semen as
magical and the source of male masculinity makes the tribes of Papua New Guinea
distinctive in terms of other same-sex behavior found in the world. Nonetheless it must still
be noted that same-sex intercourse is revered and regarded, but once again within the
context of an overarching heterosexual culture. The acts of same-sex intercourse
themselves do not threaten society; they in fact create society. The threat presents itself
when the existence of procreation is not certain.
In Pakistan, age-stratified male-male sex has existed since the Abbasid time (750
AD). In contrast to the samurai-trainee and king-mister relationships, a boy would willingly
offer himself for anal penetration based on mutual pleasure. It differs from other types of
male-male sex in that boys refused genital stimulation or kissing, due to the belief that the
oral sex or male-male kissing robbed one of his cleanliness. This is not the only form of
homosexuality, but it is the most idealized. There were no pedagogical or ritualistic reasons
for male-male sex, but rather true sexual intimacy. Boys were chosen for their prettiness,
as opposed to be samurais or monks in training. In fact, in direct contradiction to the
Kimam, if a boy acted as a sexual receptor, if anything he may have hindered his ability to
Peterson 7
attain adult masculinity. Islamic societies are the only societies in which age-stratified
male-male sex does not indicate that the receptive boy will outgrow sexual receptivity.
Rather fate, as opposed to ones past actions or sexual tendencies, determines the ability to
attain manhood. However, receptive boys are not precluded from outgrowing receptivity.
Oftentimes the pretty boys grew up to be husbands and fathers. Age-stratified male-male
sex involves partners that are past the age of fatherhood or those who are already partner
to a heterosexual relationship. A man has been married and the receptive boy has not yet
attained manhood and therefore is not a potential candidate for marriage or fatherhood.
These profiles prove that homosexuality cannot compete with procreative, heterosexual
relationships. Why must these relationships be age-stratified? Where is there acceptance of
homosexuals that live together in an exclusive relationship without having or accepting to
have children? The older man and the younger boy escape scrutiny and even garner
idealization, but only due to their presence outside the realm of either having already
procreated or not yet being able to procreation. Note that a candidate for marriage cannot
engage in homosexual relations because he will proscribe himself from avenues to
procreation. Reproduction remains the only key throughout ancient Pakistani society that
opens the door to the possibility of homosexuality.
Lastly, there exist bubbles in modern, progressive countries where homosexuality
has persisted and been overlooked. Among heterosexually married and single migrant
workers in South Africa, male-male sexual relations occurred, but not as a form of love or
romantic intimacy. As is the case with the power dynamics of prisons in North America,
Peterson 8
homosexual sex was used as a way to exert resistance to proletarianization (Sociolegal
Control of Homosexuality, p. 8). As a response, mine management turned a blind eye; these
actions stand in direct contrast to the criminalization of sodomy and harsh prison
sentences for homosexuals in South Africa throughout the early 1900s. In this way,
homosexuality became an allowed form of sexual expression while only existing in this
tight-knit bubble, from which it was not expected to escape or impact heterosexual
marriages, often marriages that the men participating in the homosexual sex were in.
Homosexuality is an irrefutable, inherent part of human nature and civilizations.
Homosexuals exist in every society, but the forms of sexual expression are not similar
across societies. However, what does appear when homosexual acts are societally accepted
is an overarching context of procreation and duty to the family unit. The inherent feature of
homosexual intercourse not being procreative necessitates that one ultimately form a
heterosexual, procreative relationship. From the kings of ancient China going on romantic
walks in the palatial gardens to the samurai-trainee pedagogical intercourse to the age-
stratified mutually pleasurable intercourse of ancient Pakistan to the extramarital bi and
homosexuality of modern Japan, these acts all have two things in common: male-male
sexual relations and an accompanying procreative relationship. Homosexuality is allowed
and accepted in societies strictly when it does not threaten ones procreative abilities. If a
man is producing offspring, generally he has the freedom of sexual expression. It is only the
modern cultures of the Western world that have openly welcomed and legalized exclusive,
monogamous homosexual relationships without the necessity of a heterosexual sexual
relationship providing offspring.