Homosexuailty in Rome?

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Originally posted by Phallanx

Normal... depends on how ones defines normal and of course each persons perception of the laws..

While today with the words 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' we simply denote the sexual preference of an individual, the ancient Hellines used only a term similar to 'homosexual' that was 'kinaidos'.. while there was absolutely no definition for 'heterosexuals'.. 
Why this is of some interest/significance.. as I said while the terms today simply define one's sexual preference, the term 'kinaidos' actually shows us what they believed..  as Epicletus has said 'the beginning of knowledge comes from the analysis of names'... so we have :

'kinaidos' =  �he who �kinei thn aido� from
 �kineo�= � to move , to meddle with things sacred� and 
�aidos� = �the personification of a conscience, of shame� 

So in reality it is 'he who provokes shame'... we see to speak of acceptance when they claimed that homosexuals 'provoke shame' is rediculous..

Now what you mention about 'lovers' fighting side by side is the intentional mianipulation of the texts presented along with a number of others to construct this myth.. 
A simple example would be the Symposium of Plato, where we find all self proclaimed wanna-be historians attempting to connect the "sacred band of Thebes" to the text.. 
In all sites I've seen this presented as an argument they all use this "translation":
"(an army should be made up of lovers and their loves)"

When you take a look at the original text you find:
"(genesthai e stratopedon eraston te kai paidikon)"

So, we find the alleged lover theory but NO eromenos = (the "passive" lover according to the stupid theory they support)
but we find (paidikon) that means (a child, boyish, still in use today in modern Hellinic see "paidi") a very common word in Hellinic texts.

The strategic innovation of Gorgidas, was to change the form of Thebean battle tactics. Untill then the young (students)=(strength) were the front line and the older (tutor)= (knowledge) were in the rear.
He mixed them, combining the strength of the young with the knoledge of the old thus, creating an unbeatable army.

To top this off, just read what Philip said, when he saw them lying dead after the battle at Chaeronea.

'Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful!'"
--
Anyway, while there are very limited if not non-existant text that support they myth of homosexuality being some kind of norm in Sparta, we have more than a few texts that support the exact opposite :

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians
2.13

[13] The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.

Xenophon, Symposium (The Banquet)
8.70

But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"--do, in the spirit of their creed, contrive to mould and fashion their "beloved ones" to such height of virtue,[71] that should these find themselves drawn up with foreigners, albeit no longer side by side with their own lovers,[72] conscience will make desertion of their present friends impossible. Self-respect constrains them: since the goddess whom the men of Lacedaemon worship is not "Shamelessness," but "Reverence.

Plutarch�s Lives Lycurgus
XVII 4

Their lovers and favorers, too, had a share in the young boy�s honor or disgrace; and there goes a story that one of them was fined by the magistrates, because the lad whom he loved cried out effeminately as he was fighting.

Plutarch�s Lives Lycurgus
XIV. 4

Nor was there any thing shameful in this nakedness of the young women; modesty attended them, and all wantonness was excluded. It taught them simplicity and a care for good health, and gave them some taste of higher feelings, admitted as they thus were to the field of noble action and glory. Hence it was natural for them to think and speak as Gorgo, for example, the wife of Leonidas, is said to have done, when some foreign lady, as it would seem, told her that the women of Laced�mon were the only women of the world who could rule men; �With good reason,� she said, �for we are the only women who bring forth men.�

Claudius Ailianus 'History' III.12

Spartan 'love' had nothing to do with shamefulness, if there ever was any such a suspicion since they would have brought shame upon Sparta. The result would be the exile of both of the loss of their lives..

Maximus of Tyre  "Declamations' 20.e

'Any male Sparta that admires a Lakonian youth, admires him only as we would a very beautiful statue. For bodily pleasures of this type are brought upon them by Hubris and are forbidden.
That's all very interesting, but what it points out is that to the Greek shameful behavior is a big no-no, not necessarily what actually constitutes shameful behavior beyond a fairly general injunction to "Don't be a slut!" 

I see nothing to indicate that any of this must be interpreted as "Don't be a homo". I think you're the one supplying the implicit assumption that homoerotic activity itself must always be shameful here. From what I know of the Greek they would rather seem to have held mixed ideas about it.

So it might be a case of some Greek actually thinking all actually practised homoerotic acts to be disgraceful. In the "Symposion", which you like to dismiss (because it must a bit of a problem from your position, no?), it's even stated that various Greek cities have differing practices, even if the dastardly Persians are indicated as the cause of the Ionian Greek in Asia not buying into the whole boy-love thing.
While others maintained a rather a complictaed position of thinking a coveted person, a young male, shouldn't put out too easily (the assumption is that the erast is passive, with no actual feelings), which after all is how modern westerners have raised their girls for millenia without actually leading to the absence of heterosexual sex.

So, not least in the light of what you've posted, to me it looks as if this discussion has got stuck in a mistaken either-or perspective on these things. It's as if the assumption is that the Greek should have been either a bunch of raging queens or assumed to have found homoeroticism just plain abhorrent on principle.
What all these quotes and observations rather seem to add up to is that the ancient Greek were involved in some furious negotiations as to exactly what might constitute "shamful acts". To some meddling with young boys would seem right out, to others it would be a matter of how it was done, while I think we can assume there would be another group just screwing their brains out.

The problem with understanding the whole Greek fascination with boys is, I think, that it can't be discussed without taking into account the apparent non-interest in women among many Greek men. Loving women would in itself seem to have been considered a sign of a base and uncouth person among som of them.

I do think concepts such as "gender system" should enter the discussion at this point, and be part of a more functional analysis of how the Greek organised individual and group relationships.