LHMP #533 Rupp 2001 Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality

This was more interesting than I expected based on past experience with the author. It primarily focuses on methodology, but does so via concrete examples.

Rupp challenges how to define “same-sex” or “same-gender” categories, given that cultures may organize sexuality around different axes than physiological similarity or difference. And “difference” may cover age, class, and gender, as well as difference of physiology. Male and female relations may draw on different factors, for example, traditions of age-differentiated relationships are almost always male. When studying sexuality, the observer’s concept of “same-sex” may make no sense within the culture being studied. This includes contexts of ritualized gender crossing or “third sex” concepts. Not all gender crossing was related to sexuality, particularly for female-bodied people within patriarchal societies. A direct connection between women’s gender-crossing and same-sex desire evolved over time. Furthermore “sexuality” depends on the definition of sexual acts. What types of genital or non-genital interactions does a culture define as “sex?” Where are the boundaries of “same-sex relations” that do not involve activities the culture defines as “sex,” including consideration of prototypical (non-sexual) “romantic friendships?” How can they be categorized if we have no access to how the participants understood their relationships? The discussion analyzes various types of erotic activity such as caressing breasts, manual stimulation, bed-sharing, and oral stimulation (including kissing).

All in all, there are no conclusions drawn in this article. It’s more intended to catalog questions that need to be considered.