A Western Import

The most visible gay movements and communities are at present found in Western countries. As a result, many people think that homosexuality is a Western import, a bad influence from there. If at all they ponder the question of indigenous homosexuality, they see in their minds transvestites, i.e. cross-dressers. If they think a little harder they may add effeminate males, albeit non-cross-dressing. In the view of the general population, these are the only kinds of indigenous homosexuality within Asian societies, a bad enough disgrace as they are.

This popular view is plain wrong. Homosexuality has always been part of Asian culture, it was not imported. It has even been celebrated in poetry and writing, and the predominant part of our history is not the cross-dressing or effeminate variety. The two related articles, The Chinese Tradition and The Arabic Tradition, give examples from two non-Western civilisations. You will notice from them that there were state officials, judges, poets, monks, even emperors, who were homosexual, and the record makes no mention about cross-dressing or effeminacy on their part.

So why do people nowadays hold this erroneous belief that except for the "bapoks", "ah-kuas" or "queens", homosexuality comes from the West? Quite obviously, the whatever-you-call-them are more visible. By dressing differently, or with mannerisms that one does not expect from males, they stand out.

However, as we know, they are just a fraction of the homosexual males around. The rest are outwardly indistinguishable from straight men. And since virtually all these "straight gays" are in the closet, society at large does not even know they exist. If we ask why they are in the closet, we'll find the most frequent answer to be that our families are very conservative. Traditional values are against homosexuality.

With a little bit of reading, you'll realise that this conclusion is indeed strange. There is a rich record of homosexuality in our Asian histories, and much of it was not underground at all. It was found in all strata of society, and written about in novels, poems, biographies and government reports.

Furthermore, since homosexual acts were not confined to homosexually-inclined persons, but also involved heterosexual men, it was common knowledge to all. How did heterosexual men get involved? In the old days, class divisions were extremely wide; societies were terribly unequal. People with power or wealth often took advantage of lower-ranking persons. It seldom mattered what the sexual orientation of the subordinate person was. If the master wanted it, or if the rich man could pay for it, one simply did it.

More interestingly, the "traditional" past was not solidly homophobic, though one should not go as far as to say it was paradise. There were, after all, anti-homosexual forces. In the Arabian context, Islam was one. In the Chinese context, family responsibilities and the need to produce heirs provided the cultural background. But for centuries, people were realistic about homosexuality, more so than today.

I will digress a little and try to explain why homophobia was not so pervasive. First we have to bear in mind that the values of those societies were very different. Today, as a result of Western influence, a high value is placed on heterosexuality -- being attracted to, being in love with, the opposite sex. There is a huge divide that separates this from the despised value of homosexuality. But in the past, the divide was placed somewhere else. Throughout Chinese history, for example, the great divide was between family duty and family irresponsibility. Duty was revered. Irresponsibility was condemned.

Now, duty meant getting married, usually to the person whom the family had arranged for you. Most brides and bridegrooms never saw their spouses till the wedding day. Marriage was not an act of love -- how could it be when they had never met? -- but an act of duty.

Love and sexual pleasure were totally separate issues from marital obligations. That is why Chinese history abounded with concubines, mistresses, lovers and prostitutes. Servant boys and servant girls had huge parts to play too. It didn't matter much which sex your partner was. So long as you have fulfilled your duty by acceding to marriage and producing an heir, your private pleasure was your own business.

Another important feature of those times was the major distinction between male and female. There was no such thing as equality of sexes. Males were superior and females inferior. It was fundamental to society that male supremacy should not be undermined, for that would lead to chaos.

Cross-dressing males were considered seditious to this power structure. They blurred the hard distinction between male and female, and were seen as traitors to their sex. Traditionally, they were stigmatised. However, being unavoidable, since in every generation some would be born who wanted to cross-dress, the old societies found a way to accommodate them in specialised niches, as performers, actors or temple dancers, where they were seen as non-sexual, and therefore not so threatening. In time, they were even seen as artistes, but the stigma never went away.

Men who were penetrated in anal sex were also looked down upon, for playing the woman's role. This was especially so in Arab society. Women were inferior; therefore men who were fucked were inferior. Interestingly, this logic was turned around in all societies, such that when two men had anal sex, the socially inferior one would be expected to take the "bottom" role. The socially superior partner could never afford to lower his social standing by being fucked. So the routine was always the master penetrating the servant, the john penetrating the prostitute, the monk penetrating the novice, the older partner penetrating the younger.

All this is clear from the historical record. We have anecdotes, poems, jokes, novels, even the official histories of the Chinese dynasties recording the details. Isn't it strange, then, that folk memory has forgotten all this? Why are Singaporean families "traditionally" homophobic?

I think the reason is that we have been so westernised. Even Chinese-speaking families have, through the last 2 or 3 generations, absorbed the values from the heyday of European empires. These were the values brought to Asia by strident Christian missionaries who condemned divorce, extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, masturbation and sodomy! Fortunately, if ever so slowly, these phobias are being eroded. No one gets very upset with pre-marital sex and masturbation anymore. With time, attitudes to homosexuality will soften too, even if the powers that be say that's another "regrettable" westernisation of Singapore.

But let's set the record straight. Homosexuality was not a Western import into Asian societies. Asian cultures have a rich tradition of art and poetry on this theme, reflecting the reality of this aspect of society. What was brought in from the West was the oppressive climate of homophobia, and if it takes a further westernisation to get rid of it, it cannot come too soon!

Click here to return to Three Essays by Alex

Click here to return to Features