Andre’s Reviews > Homoerotic Sensibilities in Late Imperial China (Routledge/Asian Studies Association of Australia > Status Update

What? I'm done? Over? And in the end one of her topics is "The literati can by no means be said to be marginal to Chinese culture and society, although clearly they were a numerical minority when compared to the farming population." Then maybe the farming population represents the majority of chinese culture better than the literati and her few is screwed. Anyway, this is over and I think she failed miserably.

Considered that she devotes more than 1.5 pages (more than to any other topic) of her conclusion to basically dismiss the notion of Volpp that late Ming and Qing China were not so tolerant of homosexuality, I think Volpp must have touched a nerve here and makes me wonder whether the author realizes the flaws in reasoning, for one: if so accepted why is this "homoeroticism" relegated to the lowest of the low?

When those scholars are also seen to identify with the same sublime 'feminine', can we deny that unions between feminized-male and feminized-male are homoerotic?
Yes, "we" can deny it. And what she is arguing here is nonsense as the literati she portrayed were not shown to identify as feminine or so, plus by her logic it then should be able to consider to biological males as heterosexual after all.

Her stating that it is a misconception to see the rise of catamites and male prostitutes as a consequence of Qing laws prohibiting officials from visiting brothels, seems really stretching now. Just like her dismissal of the suggestion that because the literati sought out catamites who had undergone 'feminization', their sexual orientation remained 'heterosexual', or at least ambiguous.

Even in her conclusion she seems reluctant to adress the unsavory aspects of this dan/xiangiong/catamite etc. culture. No mentioning of exploitation now. Nothing about the lack of freedom of the prostitutes. Only shortly does she say that their conditions were mostly appalling and even then states that some were able to act in more businesslike ways and states that the best option later was to become master-trainers.

She would not like to create the impression there was only a single form of
homoeroticism or homosexuality in China? Sorry, but saying now that if at times her analysis makes it appear that way, it is only because there are limits to what the sources currently available can reveal, is a cop out in my mind. If any other forms were common at the time we would know.

it is not always clear whether the object of analysis is homosexuality or aesthetics and taste
Oh, I'd say its pretty clear that most of the time it is not homosexuality. It couldn't be based on pure probability. This was societal pressure and most of these "love affairs" she presented or suggested were glorified status symbols using human beings as nothing more than living decoration.

Because the fashion for dan was originally a means of advertising one's good taste, refinement and sense of 'sublime love', these circumstances would have deprived the dan of much of the romantic glow they once offered for the literati. Private residences and consorting with dan were transformed into topics of humour and derision.
Deservedly so if you ask me. That stuff was nothing but exploitation.

When the Beijing True Patriotism News has a section that shows clear since of western legal and cultural influence, this here sounds to me as if that influence was rather human rights. Something the system needed if you ask me. And she sounds to me as if she seems to point to western homophobia here, not rights. But the actors themselves rebelled against the system, so I doubt this was the real reason for the changes

When in 1911 one of the most famous dan in Beijing opera, Tian Jiyun,
began a campaign to close down what he referred to as the 'private residence system' (siyuzhi). that system could not have been good for the dan to begin with and I'd say good riddance. He considered the siyu system to be the most serious degradation of the theatre.