Social Taboo of the Sexual Variation - Essay Example

Running head: SEXUAL VARIATION Sexual Variation The paper discusses homosexuality as a form of sexualand cultural variation and the historical cultural attitudes to it. The paper explores the reasons behind tabooing and continuous rejection of homosexuality as an unacceptable sexual practice in ancient and modern societies. Keywords: homosexuality, sexual variation, society, taboo Sexual Variation Do you think that homosexuality is a negative cultural phenomenon? This is the question which societies used to ask themselves for centuries but always failed to answer. At different times and at different stages of the human and societal evolution, sex, sexuality, and sexual relationships were treated differently; yet, homosexuality has almost always been the object of the social and cultural tabooing. For reasons that do not relate to economics or politics, societies (both ancient and modern) failed to find and maintain a reasonable balance between normative and sexual behaviors and thus considered it as necessary and easier to eradicate homosexuality without a trace. Today, despite the recent cultural advancements and the growing role of sexual diversity and tolerance, homosexuality is still associated with a form of cultural variation. In light of the historical and cultural developments, it would be fair to say that homosexuality was and remains an essential component and a form of sexual and cultural variation, which is believed to threaten the stability of the social and moral gendered order in different societies. Although the meaning of cultural and sexual variations changes as a result of other cultural and social changes in societies, homosexuality looks a phenomenon that can boast having remarkably stable negative connotations in different societies and at different times. Since the earliest times of human cultural development, homosexuality used to be the topic of the hot public debate and a phenomenon that rarely hit into the basic system of cultural and social traditions across different societies. Regardless of whether one speak about Iranians, Egyptians, or Hebrews – homosexuality was almost always believed to be an increasingly negative phenomenon which, despite continuous repressions and continuous public condemnation, continued to exist as an essential element of any society. Although Davies (1982) writes that homosexuality as a cultural and sexual variation has nothing to do with the changeable economic and political conditions in society, the development of the cultural connotations of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, was linked to the major economic shifts in ancient societies. Needless to say, the current opinions about homosexuality as a culturally negative phenomenon date back to the beginnings of the state and society, as well as to the rapid development of religions which had to regulate and control the pace of human development in states. Iranian beliefs about homosexuality were ruled by Zoroastrianism (Greenberg, 1988). The Hebrews restructured their beliefs about homosexuality under the influence of Leviticus writings (Greenberg, 1988). Hellenistic cultures in Greece applied to the works of the prominent philosophers, including Plato, who promoted the value of the continuous search for Beauty and thus initially denied the relevance of any homosexual relations in society (Greenberg, 1988). Social and societal attitudes toward homosexuality changed as societies moved closer to the dualistic beliefs about good and evil, and when they failed to resolve the conflict between homosexuality and the dominant cultural practices, they preferred to load homosexuality with the cultural negativity and to try to eradicate is as a form of highly undesirable cultural practice. In Egypt, the development of negative attitudes toward sexuality was closely associated with the rapid economic growth and the changes in the division of wealth and labor (Greenberg, 1988). The more pronounced the gap between the rich and the poor became the more rigid and negative the poor majority grew toward the cultural manifestations of homosexuality (Greenberg, 1988). In Iran, the rise of negative homosexual attitudes was accompanied by the rapid expansion of Zoroastrianism (Greenberg, 1988). Zoroastrian adherents believed that “the enemies of social order – those who raided, robbed, and killed – could not be accommodated, only fought; and so they were identified with the principles of evil in the universe” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 186). In Iran, as well as among the Hebrews, homosexuality was often associated with prostitution and thus was both illegal and culturally inappropriate (Greenberg, 1988). The Hebrews who relied on writings of Leviticus treated homosexuality as a successful form of internalizing the rules of holiness and god’s will and giving up their homosexual desire under the threat of punishment (Greenberg, 1988). As a result, homosexuality came to identify itself with the sense of guilt and blameworthiness (Greenberg, 1988). In Hellenistic societies, the condemnation of homosexuality was an essential component of religious and cultural purity, which the population at large had to pursue (Greenberg, 1988). The only question is in WHY all societies treated homosexuality as a serious sexual variation and even as a cultural deficiency and WHY societies either tabooed homosexuality or sought to eradicate it. This question is likely to be answered in two different ways. First, and foremost, ancient cultures considered homosexuality as a cultural and sexual phenomenon that broke the boundaries of sexual and gender differentiation and thus threatened the stability of the heterosexual order in society (Davies, 1982). In Leviticus we read: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that it an abomination” (Davies, 1982). Leviticus actually turned homosexuality into a new form of cultural taboo, while Taboos in Judeo-Christian traditions were an effective means to help different groups (including gender groups) retain their distinctive identity (Davies, 1982). Such delineation of different cultural groups is the necessary precondition for preserving the value of holiness and cultural purity (Davies, 1982). According to Davies, “the force of such taboos was less in their meaning than in their structure, as they insisted in the separation of different categories and served a daily reminder of God’s setting apart different population groups and breeds” (Davies, 1982). In light of these taboos, societies view homosexuality as the phenomenon that breaks the conventional boundaries of gender and sexual conduct and can thus be considered as the sexual variation that threatens the stability of the gendered social order (Davies, 1982). Another essential explanation is in the way individuals and societies treat sex and sexual activity. Throughout years, western societies have been developing in the atmosphere of sexual essentialism (Vance, 1984). Sexual essentialism is the theory that claims sex to be prior to social life and institutions and as a practice which is inherently unclean, asocial and transhistorical (Vance, 1984). Even in the light of the expanding sexual relativism and the growing importance of the constructivist tendencies, which change the meaning of different sexual variations depending on the conditions in which they develop and sustain society was not able to get rid of the homosexual negativity (Vance, 1984). Today, as well as many centuries ago, sexual variations continue to exist within a radically punitive social framework (Vance, 1984). That means that homosexuality as a sexual and cultural variation is further condemned and punished. Like many centuries ago, homosexuality is still associated with a form of sexual oppression and repression in society (Vance, 1984). As a result, even in the middle of the 20th century, homosexual communities and individuals in America and England faced the growing cultural and social opposition (Vance, 1984). In many aspects, the current societal situation reflects the continuous opposition to relaxing the religious and social norms against homosexuality (Davies, 1982). As a result, even if homosexual practices do not always follow or are linked to the respective changes in economics and politics, they are always integrally connected to the normative culture and exemplify a form of the sexual/ cultural variation which societies condemn and view as the major threat to the stability of the gendered social order. Conclusion Throughout centuries, homosexuality was considered as a form of sexual and cultural variation which societies rejected as unacceptable or undesirable. In Zoroastrian Iran, homosexuality was equaled to evil which society could not reduce but to fight and eradicate. Hebrews treated homosexuality as a form of abomination. In Hellenistic tradition, homosexuality went against the principles of beauty and gendered social order. In all societies, tabooing and rejection of homosexuality aimed to preserve the stability of the gendered social order and to maintain a clear line between the sexes. The two basic reasons stood behind continuous condemnation of homosexuality. On the one hand, homosexuality was believed to erase the boundaries of gender. On the other hand, homosexuality was associated with sexual essentialism which treated sex as impure and asocial. Today, homosexuality is still associated with cultural suppression, repression, and oppression and even the growing significance of the cultural relativism and constructivism were not able to reduce the scope of condemnation and tabooing of homosexuality in postmodern societies. References Davies, C. (1982). Sexual taboos and social boundaries. AJS, 87(5), 1032-1063. Greenberg, D.F. (1988). Sexual asceticism in the ancient world. In D.F. Greenberg, Construction of homosexuality, The University of Chicago Press. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C.S. Rubin, Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality. London Sydney Wellington. Read More