Homosexuailty in Rome?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=668
Printed Date: 17-May-2024 at 15:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Homosexuailty in Rome?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Homosexuailty in Rome?
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 15:53
|
From what I heard 13 of the 14 first roman emperors were gay, And I am trying to get an understanding to see if gay marraige was allowed back then? I did pull this off a website describing a type of cermony they had for gay marriage but this is the internet so I want to see if it is a reliable source. Roman marriage artcile( http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm - http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm ): Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married. |
Replies:
Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 16:36
|
From what I gather, it was legal, or at least manipulative kinds of 'marriage'were. Heres a site that raises several interesting points: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarriage.html - http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarri age.html ------------- τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι; |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 17:14
I thought it was fairly well known that the Romans were pretty big flames...Probably that adoption of Hellenistic culture ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 17:43
|
They weren't so much into long-term relationships, but rather, were into 'fooling around'. Just something the upper classes did for a time. ------------- τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι; |
Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 20:18
|
Uh no, gay marriage wasn't common in ancient Rome, regardless of what those sites may tell you. The ancients (including Rome) had a different viewpoint regarding homosexuality. It only became a slur IF you were the passive member in the relationship. That's why the rumor of Caesar's supposed relationship with Nicomedes caused a ruckus - Caesar was reputed to have been the passive party. Rome's viewpoint on homosexuality was not uncommon in the ancient world and definitely not related to the hellenistic influence. Marriage however was still viewed (for the most part) as being between man and woman and I really don't know of a legal case where a marriage contract between same sex lovers was legally binding in 2nd century Rome. But that's not to say it didn't happen. It is true that many prominent men in the ancient world did include male lovers in their sexual experience but I'm not sure if you really could label them as gay. That is of course, not to say that some weren't - Hadrian is a prime example of one who obviously preferred men to women. ------------- Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas |
Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 20:19
|
But what all that meant is that homosexuality didn't carry the same stigma in the ancient world as it does today. ------------- Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas |
Posted By: Maciek
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 01:37
|
Yes Cornelia is definetly right. It is hard to explain the difference of it - in ancient and today but it was something much different. For ancient people it was just something almost normal to have the relation with the same sex but in the same time as we see from Caesar example it was a cause to make laugh from someone. So I'm sure there were no marriages like that because otherwise - it would be legal and not so fun
My impression is that in Rome it became very similar (in one point) to what today is happening in Holywood - almost every famous man admitt that he has such relation - it's sometjing like fashion |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 04:42
|
It's amazing how much attention and debate does the topic of homosexuality get! Anyway, it's no secret that ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with it. But it was a different kind than it is today. Homosexual behaviour was not acceptable between grown ups and feminine behaviour was an absolute no-no if one did not wanted to be the ridicule of the city. Citizens were expected to marry and have children, not fool around dressed in pink The persians also had similar habits (including eunuchs). Some debate that they copied the Greeks on that. I'm not sure... I'm under the impression that homosexuality was common and acceptable amongst the Vikings as well. What about other cultures? ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 14:10
|
Its probably not the same thing but Temujin and Jamuka were said to share the same bed when young. Thats prolly not sexual though, however I know one steppe ruler who was...Babur, Mughal conqueror of India! I found this out by reading his memoirs, he had 4 wives who he never talks about and one who left him for "inadequat services" while he was infatuated by some teenager in Kabul. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 03:51
|
Exactly! Right on the nail Cornelia. The ancients (Greeks & Romans) were not concerned about homosexuality from a morale point of view. Our modern day morale is a result of Christianity or Islam etc and fear of sin. Such things were non-existant back then. The ancients only concern on the matter was from the social point of view. A man was not supposed to offer but to receive pleasure and they were very immaginative in ways of receiving sexual pleasure. A man's sexual pleasure would come from women or men (slave or barbarian men) but free men were not supposed to be passive because that would undermine their social status. We have records in comedies where passive citizens in Athens are ridiculed by name in public.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2004 at 02:09
|
Cornellia - you beat me to this one - I have to agree with you and Maciek and Yiannis here. Don't know if anyone else noticed - but the second website cited above: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarri age.html - http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarri age.html was written by Paul Halsall, who I believe is also the editor of one of my favorite classics sites - the Internet History Sourcebooks - at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall - www.fordham.edu/halsall the site is already listed at our sticky thread of favorite classics sources online. BTW - Temujin - is there something you want to share with us? We promise we'll only chuckle a little bit in a very non-judgemental way... ------------- In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan) |
Posted By: Gubook Janggoon
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2004 at 20:03
|
Everyone was gay in the Ancient world.
------------- |
Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2004 at 05:50
|
That quote is atributed to Edward Gibbon "of the first fiteen empreors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct. "I am trying to get an understanding to see if gay marraige was allowed back then?" In the Roman Empire - certainly - but as noted above - it was not common. There are few sources about such behavior from the Republic - just as there are few sources about anything. The Empire left behind a much greater historical record. Again - Maciek, Yiannis and Cornellia have addressed the morality issue - the Romans had no qualms about homosexual relationships, only about the social status of the participants being maintained. Marriage was a completely different thing then than it is today. It was a formal, contractual relationship that transferred a woman from the control of her father's house to that of her husband. It was entered into only if the social status of neither family would be affected, if it were a good economic match, and offered the prospect of offspring with the correct lineage. Courtship between men and women as we know it today did not exist. Most marriages were arranged by the respective families with concern for the benefit of the family at large greatly outweighing any concern for the participants in the marriage. There are two works that address the question fully and eruditely, one directly and one indirectly. Both mentioned in the Alexander the Gay thread: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=841&KW=boswell&PN=0&TPN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=841& KW=boswell&PN=0&TPN=1 are by former Yale professor John Boswell. He writes well and is very well documented. His references to primary sources are quite good. My only criticism would be his regular use of (untransliterated) Greek and Latin terms. Keep the dictionaries nearby.The first, which won several awards including the National Book Award for history in 1981 (He's in good company - Kissinger won that category in 1980) is "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" Chapter 3 deals exclusively with Rome. In it he makes some very good points. "Prejudices affecting sexual behavior, roles or decorum generally affected all persons uniformly. Roman society almost unanimously assumed that adult males would be capable of, if not interested in, sexual relations with both sexes. It is extremely difficult to convey to modern audiences the absolute indifference of most Latin authors to the question of gender." "A very strong bias appears to have existed against passive sexual behavior on the part of the adult male citizen...But if an adult citizen openly indulged in such behavior he was viewed with scorn...Apart from general questions of gender expectations and sexual differentiation, the major cause of this prejudice appears to have been a popular association of sexual passivity with political impotence...He did not actually forfeit his position, but he invited scorn in metaphysically abdicating the power and responsibility of citizenhood." Boswell goes on to quote many sources, including "The Elder Seneca who records a (legal) case in which a freedman is criticized for being his patron's concubine, but his lawyer responds that 'sexual service is an offense for the freeborn, a necessity for the slave and a duty for the freedman.' " The second work by Boswell on this topic is less well known. "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" deals with the gradual progression of prejudice against the formal union of same sex couples. Chapter 2 is: For Family and Country; Heterosexual Marriage in the Greco-Roman World - Here he discusses the institution of marriage as it existed then, both legal marriage and "sine manu" (those without authority). "...The social institution of marriage...has been in most premodern societies primarily a property arrangement." "It would not be an exaggeration to say that most upper class marriages before modern times were business deals, arranged with dynastic and property considerations uppermost in mind, and emotional and sexual aspects secondary." Chapter 3 is: A Friend Inspired by God; Same Sex Unions in the Greco-Roman World In this chapter Boswell discusses what he sees as the general types of homosexual relationships: Exploitation of males owned or controlled by other males; Concubinage; Lovers; and Formal Unions. "...there were also many same sex couples in the Roman world who lived together permanently, forming unions neither more nor less exclusive than those of the heterosexual couples around them." " The poet Martial describes, at the opening of the second century 'The bearded Callistratus married the rugged Afer under the same law by which a woman takes a husband." Boswell relates Seutonius' account of how the Emperor Nero "Married a man (named Sporus) in a very public ceremony with a dowry and a veil (flammeum)." "On another occasion, the emperor himself 'was given in marriage to a freedman, just as Sporus had been given to him.' " In his discussion of Elagabalus' marriage to the athlete Heirocles, he says "he shocked his subjects with his utter lack of decorum in sexual matters, particularly because he flagrantly took a passive role with other males, behavior thought feminine and inappropriate for any adult male citizen, especially and emperor." By the fourth century there began to be laws in Rome forbidding such formal unions. "...the era witnessed many dramatic transformations of traditional patterns. At the opening of the century Christianity was illegal, by its close paganism was punishable by death." Later in the book he goes on to discussions of various formal unions recognized by the state and the church which did not disappear in parts of the Empire until much later. Basil I (ruled 867 - 886 CE) entered into two relationships with men that were celebrated in church ceremonies. These were in addition to his relationship with his predecessor Michael, his relationship to several concubines (some or all shared with Michael) and his two heterosexual marriages (one to a woman who was Michael's concubine). ------------- In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2005 at 14:51
|
Yes, the Romans behaved as bisexuals NOT homosexuals.
|
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2005 at 17:46
Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.185 a man chargeable with the most shameful practices, a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman? In that case, who of you will punish a woman if he finds her in wrong doing? Or what man will not be regarded as lacking intelligence who is angry with her who errs by an impulse of nature,while he treats as adviser the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body? source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ - www.perseus.tufts.edu Am I the only one to notice: "sins of a woman" and "despite of nature has sinned against his own body Allow me to totally disagree, on how the ancient Hellines viewed same-sex relations. |
Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 08:15
|
"sins of a woman" and "despite of nature has sinned against his own body" can carry a whole spectrum of meanings. I've not read the whole text this excerpt was taken from so I can't say what Aeschines was referring to. What I can say is that the ancient world (not just Greeks or Romans, mind you) did not think of sexuality in terms of bisexuality or homosexuality or even morality. Modern morality has no place in trying to understand the ancients. If you can't grasp that, then you will never truly understand the world they lived in. Women were expected to marry, have children and remain faithful but men could seek pleasure and partners among both sexes. Now, its true that among the Romans at least (not familiar enough with the others to say), once you'd matured you should not take the more passive role in a same sex relationship. When Caesar's enemies insulted him because of the rumors of his affair* with Nicomedes, it was not because he was reputed to have had a same-sex relationship, it was because he was supposed to have taken the passive role in the relationship.
*I say 'rumors of his affair' because we have no proof other than the slander of his enemies that such a thing took place. ------------- Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 22:35
|
Many attempt to connect the text only to prostitution, but once read
(the original version since translations tend to vary), you will see
that the whole homo-relations idea was condemned by the Hellines.
Another good source would be Plato's "Republic". One of the major problems in understanding ancient sexuality is the misconception of the term "erastes" that actually had nothing to do with a sexual act but with the admiration of beauty. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that the noble lover of beauty "falls" in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail. So we see that gender just becomes an irrelevant detail and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important. But isn't this exactly what "erastes" means ? Robert Flaceliere in his book Love in Ancient Greece (trans. by James Cleugh. Frederick Muller Ltd., London; 1962) : On page 140 he writes: "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous. It would be also very interesting to note a tale written by AESOP not very well known : "ZEUS gave man all his vitues and his flaws through every hole in his body, from his ears , mouth ,nostrils and eyes , he left "AIDOS" (shame) last. He tried to put "AIDOS" (shame) through the asshole. AIDOS (shame) reacted, finally, they came to an agreement that if anything else would ever go in the asshole after she (AIDOS) did, she would leave that body immediately, thats why homosexuals in ancient Hellas were called "kinaidos" . If we are to brake the word down, we find that it is nothing more than he who kinei thn aido = kineo= to move , to meddle with things sacred and aidos = the personification of a conscience, of shame (it is well known that whoever provoked Aidos was always paid a visit from Nemesis.  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2005 at 15:41
|
Our modern day morale isn't totally a result of Christianity or Islam. The Stoic philosophers during the first centuries AD (e.g. Musonoius Rufus) were talking about that men should show more respect to woman and give up their boylovers. The moral philosophers during this period condemned homosexuality and infidelity. These ethics made it later easier for Christianity to prevail.
|
Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 10:03
|
Phallanx
Actually the only substantive issue in Aeschines against Timarchus is prostitution. It was not a sodomey trial, or a trial about Timarchus having sex with men. The only actual issue is weather Timarchus should have his rights to be an active citizen stripped, because of either his past as a male prostitute and possably his alleged wasting of his inheritance. More important, lets remember why the trial is taking place, Timarchus is a key ally of Demosthenes, and was caught up in the web of politics between Aeschenis and Demosthenes. Since Demosthenes never denies the actual facts of Timarchus prostitution (in retrospect in On false embassy), but Timarchus does recover his standing as a citizen, homosexuality can hardly be the key part of the case. Its too bad we dont have the defense speech from Demosthenes for Timarchus original trial. It is also important to note that at least three citizens are alleged to have kept Timarchus (according to Aeschines) but they are under no legal threat or sanction. Why suggest Plato. In general while Plato may have wanted only heterosexual sex in his ideal state, his work hardly supports the case that this was the actually norm in |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2005 at 10:18
|
I think you might have misunderstood, sure homos did exist in ancient Hellas as
they did in Persia, Egypt, in every society and civilization from the beginning
of time. But never were they any kind of norm nor were they ever accepted. In "against Timarchus" it is wrong to say that the only issue we find is prostitution. If so, why would we find him mention laws against schools being open after sunset, abuse of slaves......... Anyway, that isn't important simply because the quote I used makes no reference to prostitution, but clearly to the "act" itself. "the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body" This sentence clealy shows us, how the ancient Hellines saw homosexuality. True there were some places were this "act" might have been accepted, but this conclusion derives form a reletively "small" number of texts, since our knowledge on places as Elis (as in your example) is actually next to nothing. Since Xenophon and Plato are mentioned, it would be interesting to see the "ideas" presented in their work. In Plato's Symposium, where we are presented with the mystical realization of Plato's famous Doctrine of the Forms. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical ascent" by the admiration of all bodies, then on to human institutions -- such as the state -- until, finally, one can come to understand and love the beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of God Himself: an evolutionary process that is ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one from the enslavement of the flesh. In Xenophon's version of the Symposium (sometimes titled, Banquet), Socrates expounds on the importance of a love that transcends bodily desires. He tells one of his fellow banqueters that: "My heart is set on showing you ... that not only humankind but also gods and demi-gods set a higher value on the friendship of the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body. For in all cases where Zeus became enamored of mortal women for their beauty, though he united with them he suffered them to remain mortal; but all those persons whom he delighted in for their souls' sake he made immortal." It is this love , a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical -- that has come to be known as "Platonic love" in all of the languages of the world. And it is just this love that set the standards of behavior that existed between teacher and boy, as well as between adult friends in ancient Greece. Though it never reached such lofty heights, the admiration of the beauty of the male form was also prevalent in the Roman world as evidenced by such as St. Augustine of Hippo (arguably Christianity's most heterosexual saint), who said that the body was obviously created for more than mere utilitarian purposes; it was also meant to be admired for its beauty. As an example, he cites the beard which has no functional purpose but was given to men to make them beautiful. So that we have the combination of the need in the Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic of the beautiful that was universally admired and sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts and virtues into the hands of older men, and one begins to see that such a mix could be potentially explosive. For this reason, although these friendships were encouraged, there were -- according to many sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others --tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical, relationship. That some, if not many, may have strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here is to understand that those who did risked serious legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and forbidden by custom and law. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2005 at 12:05
|
I know this thread is about Rome, but since Greece also has been mentioned, I thought I should post this link: http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm - http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuali ty_in_ancient_greece.htm |
Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2005 at 04:04
No, at best it tells something about Athens. It says a lot more about the bitter political dispute over how to deal with Philip of Macedon than what the Athenians though about Timarchus be a male prostitute in his youth. In Against Timarchus, Aeschines starts by citing several laws, none of then are primarily concerned with homosexuality. The first two protect children and the third is the law against hybris (which protects any person in Athens from for want of a better description, assault or rape or outrage). It significant that both the law against hybris and the law forbidding a parent or guardian from prostituting or abusing their children are explicitly stated as protecting men or women (considering I can think of no example of a female prostitute explicitly servicing only women, I take this a solid evidence that the law was concerned with the general abuse of minors (via prostitution) not a specific bar against homosexuality). Aeschines also cites another law that forbids a citizen who has prostituted himself from full citizen status (again there was an equivalent law that banned a female citizen prostitute from her civic status as well). Taken together the laws Aeschines cites show the Athenians were very concerned about the welfare of children; that they felt children as minors who were abused suffered no stigma; That the penalties for a parent or guardian (or teacher, etc) who abused a minor were very stiff; and that everyone in Attica (even slaves) had an expectation of some basic right of freedom from assault or outrage. But no law cited by Aeschines is explicitly constructed around homosexuality. What is glaringly obvious is that no law barred citizens who paid and used male prostitutes from there citizen status. One would think if Aeschines was merely a do-gooder enforcing Hellenic disapproval of homosexuality he might have prosecuted Hegesandros as well (another prominate and wealthy Athenian), and apparent homosexual who was a client of Timarchus). Aeschines also notes that a citizen, who squanders his patrimony, is also barred from his rights. Aeschines spends some considerable time showing that Timarchus was just such a man; according to Aeschines, Timarchus prostitutes himself because he has wasted his inheritance. Aeschines also claims Timarchus has in the past abused official positions to extort money from Athenian allies. In total the argument of Aeschines is not we must ban the homosexual from the assembly, but we must ban a dissolute citizen who has wasted his fortune, misused his offices, and sunk low enough to sell himself (the logical next step is of courses its only a matter of time until he sells and betrays his country as well). Considering we have neither the defense (delivered by Demosthenes) of Timarchus, nor any record off why the court voted for Aeschines, whos to say what aspect of the case won the day: The second argument (squandered inheritance) or the first (male prostitution). But, what is really missing in any discussion about this case is the fact that what we are really looking at is a political pre-emptive strike. Whatever he had been in the past, before and during his trial Timarchus was an active politician, no doubt at least well-off financially, and ally of Demosthenes. Timarchus was about to introduce an action to prosecute Aeschines as a result of his activities as an ambassador to Macedonia. Aeschines struck first however with his prosecution that would if successful, remove Timarchus from the field. Actual court cases represented a tiny minority of the over body of legal decisions at Athens (the vast majority be settled before a magistrate or in arbitration). Anytime Aeschines or Demosthenes (or any other leading politician) enters the picture, one should first and foremost be suspect of political motivations (especially if you have both Demosthenes and Aeschines). Consider Apollodoros (often noted as the eleventh famous Attic orator), another ally of Demosthenes. Apollodoros was subject to what was a completely fake allegation of murder by Stephanos. Why, because as one accused of murder Apollodrls would be banded from the courts (except his own trial) and the assembly. He would be effectively sidelined for a time, unable to lend his considerable oratioal skills to the aid of the anti-Macedonian war faction. As Demosthenes, noted in On false embassy Timarchus had been an active politician for years, yet Aeschines had never in the past objected to allowing such a notorious person address the assemby Plato and Xenophon: You are citing what both men suggest would be ideal or correct, but failing to note they are contrasting their ideals with reality that is opposite or was of sync. Thus Xenophon (in Constitution of the Lacedaemonians) does suggest a nice idealized (platonic) relationship, but specifically contrasts it with Elis and Boeotia. Boeotia is described as a place where men can live together as man and wife The same contrast is brought up again in Xenophons Symposium as well. Plato also is explicitly contrasting his ideals to the actual world. In Laws he worries that the ideal state will be contaminated by the sexual morals that actually prevail among the Greeks and Barbarians. |
Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2005 at 05:15
|
isn't all this homosx. in rome and greece stuff simply not true. why would any roman emp. or anyone roman for that matter turn that way during those times. |
Posted By: UnholyMenace
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2005 at 09:27
Cant say that they were so homosexual - more like pederasty. Older man took a young man to teach him (thech him in any way  ). These older men of course had wifes, so cant say there were totally homosexual. And it was pretty common in Ancient-Creek/Rome and noone looked so weird at it - maybe like a part of the culture . About the older and younger man relationship, then it wasnt decent when younger man started "teaching" the older man.
|
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2005 at 11:43
It's not true because they were more often bisexual, not homosexual. It was part of their culture, just like eating dormice. ------------- |
Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2005 at 02:27
|
I hated romans for the slavery they did but this is outrageous. Are u sure about this? |
Posted By: UnholyMenace
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2005 at 07:50
|
|
Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2005 at 10:13
You are kind of stuck hating a lot societies across a lot history, in that case. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 21:12
Doesn't this very fact prove that the whole "erastes-eromenos" theory is nothing more than a myth??? If we are to see the meaning of "eromenos" we find that once again has nothing to do with any kind of sexual intercourse : Just some examples Plato, Euthydemus 282b there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise. Platos Symposium, it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue. It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules 184b Xenophon Symposium 8.8 [8]Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character. If we continue: Xenophon Symposium [26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent" Platos Republic 403b may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it? No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them. Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss1 and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him. All of these texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual as you can see. Now you correctly mention a law that barred them from their rights. This was the law of "grafi eterisios". "eterisios" from "eteros" or as seen in translated texts "hetairos"= comrade, companion. We also find the well known "hetaires", what we concider today, thanks to all this mistranslation as whores, but the word clearly gives a different meaning, so they should actually be concidered companions or I think the more apropriate meaning would be something similar to mistress. If the argument was only about his selling his body (as a whore does) then the law should have used the term "porni" (with hetta) from "pernimi"= "to sell" and has the meaning of whore, prostitute. The very FACT that in 1.29 Aeschynes uses the words "H peporneumenos,phusin, H etairikos:= "either prostituted or has became a "comrade/companion/mistress" (in short, his bitch) So since we find Aeschynes mentioning both prostitution and companionship. (interesting) We know for a fact that homos were called kinaidos= shameless. If we are to brake the word down, we find that it is nothing more than he who kinei thn aido = kineo= to move , to meddle with things sacred and aidos = the personification of a conscience, of shame (it is well known that whoever provoked Aidos was always paid a visit from Nemesis. So when he mentions companionship he is clearly talking about homo relations. For he that has sold out his dignity shame has nothing left, so why not also sell out his city. I think we should also see the meaning of the word etaira, as seen in the Liddle Scott dictionary: courtesan, Hdt.2.134, Ar.Pl.149, Ath.13.567a,571d, etc.; opp. porne (a common prostitute), Anaxil.22.1 ; opp. gamet, Philetaer.5 ; Aphrodit he. Apollod.Hist.17. note that opp does mean opposite (source perseus.tuft) Another VERY interesting fact that must be taken under concideration when discussing this MYTH, is that most of these leading wanna-be "historians" of Hellinic sexuality, see: Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler and David Halperin were or are all HOMOS. The reason, of course, is simple. The Hellines have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their "sick nature" than by connecting it to the greatness of the Hellinic civilization and thus legitimise same-sex? If we are to look at vase art, we also come to interesting conclusions. In his book, K.J Dover (considered as one of the authorities on ancient Hellinic sexuality. LOL) presents a total of 600 vases. What is very interesting is the fact that only 20-25 (I am really generous here) can be concidered to depict something sexual. The rest of them 575!!! have nothing to do with the topic in question. Yet he manages to connect them with some actually ridiculous assumptions. example: In artifact E373 the young man depicted has a tiny penis but a normal scrotum, in E368 his scrotum is enormous, In another vase he mentions that "the hoop and walking stick carry their own symbolism" It is also interesting to note that the exact theory that both Dover and Reinsberg have introduced, is that, during these alleged homosexual acts, actual penetration NEVER did take place!! because the ancient Hellines believed that it was disgracefull. Simple proof of this are the vase paintings found after the Persian defeat, where we find the Hellines coming up to the bent over Pesian fully aroused. Clearly depicting domination. Note that Dover presents this in his book as alleged proof of homosexuality in Hellas!!!! So the question that must be answered is: what kind of homo paradise was Hellas when we never did have any kind of penetration? These arguments as you can plainly see, are ridiculous Other things to think about: At the 6th International Symposium on Ancient Macedonia in Thessaloniki, Hellas, concluded that King Philip II of Macedonia was bisexual. Now the interesting part: During this "symposium" these alleged historians were comfronted by the well known (in Hellas that is) Hellin researcher Kyriakos Velopoulos. What he managed to uncover is very interesting. The two main speakers were Kate Modersen and Mandian (spl?), both well respected historians and professors at New England University. He argued with them on the topic, his arguments were based on the original texts, by original I mean in ancient Hellinic, not translated. These wanna-be historians couldn't read a word in ancient Hellinic and of course had no idea on how to translate the text. It was all over the Hellinic news how they were ridiculed and left, long before it even ended. So, what historians are we talking about when they can't even read the original SOURCES and how credible can their opinion really be? |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2005 at 17:19
| What about the women? Were they free about that too? Most famous lesbian Sappho was disliked if I remember correct. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2005 at 18:58
|
Even though, modern and not so modern scholars managed to come up with
the misconseption of "erastes-eromenos"and "paiderastia", they found it
impossible to find a "similar" term, that would describe female
homosexuality. So they came up with the term "lesbian" first attested in 1870. Since then the island of Lesbos has become a "symbol" for all female homos in every language of the world. All this because of the existance of Sappho. The major problem for all of these "self-proclaimed" historians/researchers, is that we only have a few verses of one of her work and not even a whole verse of the rest of her work. Anyway, to the point. There are more than enough texts that mention Sappho. We find Ovid, Athenaios and Suidas among others, speaking of her love with Phaon. We know for a fact that she was a mother and wife that wrote "epithalamia"= "wedding songs" that spoke, not of lesbian affairs but of the beauty of young girls that were about to become wifes and mothers themselves. It is interesting to note that a wanna-be named Yves Battistini wrote a book about Sappho. Why is it interesting? Simple, in his book he quotes a part of a poem written by Anacreondos where we find him translating: "προς δ'αλλον τινα χασκει" or "pros d'allon tina haskei" which when correctly translated gives the meaning of: "towards someone else she giggles" but this wanna-be translated it as: " but the item of her passion is something else, a girl" So anyone gets the point. Note that this Yves dude was a homo himself, as was the poet Walter Pater a tutor at Oxford where he and his band of homos originally began this homo fiasco in Oxford. Areally good read on this topic would be Bruce Thornton's Eros: The Myth of ancient Greek Sexuality |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 09:30
|
Zagros Purya Not exactly sure how looooong this will be but I'll try to keep it as short as possible. Let's start off by saying that of course homosexuality existed in ancient Hellas, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death. This is very clear once we read the texts. If, he had previously "gone public" with his homosexual lifestyle though he would have been permitted to live, he would, under Athenian law (graf etairsios), not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death (Aeschines. "Contra Timarchus," ( he literally didn`t even exist, easy to understand if you`ve read anything about ancient Athens ) Note that Dover also mentioned in your source totally agree's that any man that had either prostituted himself or had any kind of homo relations was totally disregarded as a citizen p.22 Let's see the texts: Plato talks about how homosexuals must worry about being found out: If you are afraid of public opinion, and fear that if people find out your love affair you will be disgraced. (Phaedrus, 231 e.) More Plato: This law is the cause of countless blessings. For, in the first place, it follows the dictates of nature, and it serves to keep men from sexual rage and frenzy and all kindsof fornication, and from all excess in meats and drinks, and it ensures in husbands fondness for their own wives. (Laws, VIII. 839 a - b.) In order to understand exactly why this theory has been so widely circulated we must first see who exactly are the supporters and why they support it. Walter Pater (1890's a poet and tutor) he and his band of homos originally began this fiasco theory in Oxford. We find them introducing a totally new "theory" that Platonic love has nothing to do with "phyche" but is totally based on phisical attraction. Later we find a list of wanna-be "historians" of Hellinic sexuality, see: Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler and David Halperin that were or are all HOMOS striving to make some connection between homos and Hellinism. The reason, of course, is simple. The Hellines have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their "sick nature" than by connecting it to the greatness of the Hellinic civilization and thus legitimise same-sex? After this short introduction, we get to the site you so generously provided. A paper by some "grad student" that should have actually FLUNKED instead of being "rewarded" by putting this manifest of ignorance on a web site.
True Plato does write frequently about eros and he frequently uses the terms "erastes-eromenos" but what do these words mean??? As seen in various texts "eromenos" clearly has the meaning: Plato, Euthydemus 282b there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise. Platos Symposium, it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue. It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules 184b Xenophon Symposium 8.8 [8]Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character. If we continue: Xenophon Symposium [26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent" Platos Republic 403b may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it? No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them. Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss1 and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that the noble lover of beauty "falls" in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail. So we see that gender just becomes an irrelevant detail and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important. We must understand that these texts represent a philosophic discussion and not an exact representation of everyday life, beside this all texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual as anyone can see. Your "source" also mentions Socrates as one of the arguments to support the alleged homo relations. Had the author read any of the texts he mentions he would have seen that even though Socrates is mentioned to have had many "eromenoi" there is absolutely NO reference of sexual intercourse but the exact opposite. Beside the above quote from Xenophon's Symposium, if you read Plato's Symposium you'd find that Socrates clearly tells Critias NOT to see his "eromenos" sexualy. So the very first thing we understand is that "eromenos" obviously means something else, otherwise why would he continue and almost argues with him about it. Another part of Symposium that MUST be noted is thatPlato uses the "corrupt" Alcibiades to seduce Socrates,we find that not only does Socrates NOT "give in" but he actually attempts to guide Alcibiades towards vitue. Is this possible, Socrates the "erastes" of so many youths reject the "offer" of the most beautiful Alcibiades???? It is. We find Alcibiades swearing that nothing ever happened between them, but interestingly enough, Socrates throughout the whole text of the Symposium is titled as Alcibiades' "erastes", when all he does is GUIDE him. Equally interesting in the Symposium is Diotima's role in the discussion. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical ascent" by the admiration of all bodies, then on to human institutions -- such as the state -- until, finally, one can come to understand and love the beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of God Himself: an evolutionary process that is ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one from the enslavement of the flesh. I'll avoid to mention Aeschynes, since we could actually quote the entire text to support the FACT that the ancient Hellines actually saw homos as a disgrace.
Not only do we have the pleasure of being entertained by his ignorance but he also falls so low he actually performs Hybris. What this "grad student" conveniently avoids to give is the morphologic analysis of the name Ganymede given by Xenophon in his Symposium 8.54-58 "to show you that not men only, but gods and heroes, set greater store by friendship of the soul than bodily enjoyment. Thus those fair women [55] whom Zeus, enamoured of their outward beauty, wedded, he permitted mortal to remain; but those heroes whose souls he held in admiration, these he raised to immortality. Of whom are Heracles and the Dioscuri, and there are others also named.[56] As I maintain, it was not for his body's sake, but for his soul's, that Ganymede[57] was translated to Olympus, as the story goes, by Zeus. And to this his very name bears witness, for is it not written in Homer? And he continues 8.59 "Knowing deep devices {medea} in his mind, [59] which is as much as to say, "Knowing wise counsels in his mind." Ganymede, therefore, bears a name compounded of the two words, "joy" and "counsel," and is honoured among the gods, not as one "whose body," but "whose mind" "gives pleasure."
First of all, concerning Aristophanes, Euripides or any other comedy and drama creator, it is completely wrong and inappropriate to use theatre plays as historical sources. A play is just a play, it servers the need of learning together with entertainment. The most accurate sources are the myths themselves. It is equivalent to being a historian of the 41st century and study history of our times bases upon comedy shows. Not exactly sure how he manages to come to the conclusion that Aristophanes is a "good" source to find homos. Since in every chance he gets he manages to ridicule homos in every occasion he mentions them, even when talking about the God Dionysus in "Frogs". If a comedian of our time was to use terms equivalent to "lakkoproktos", "euruproktos" and "kunaidos", all used by Aristophanes. He would be "labeled" racsist and homophobic, banned from every theater. (we must note that out of a total of 6.000 texts these 3 words appear only 20 times, so as you see they didn't waste their time on homos) The very fact that he uses these terms for Dionysus, commiting HYBRIS is proof enough that homos wereconsidered disgusting and NEVER accepted. Anyway, I think this is more than enough for now, Dover, Sappho and the band of Thebes have been discussed in previous posts. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 16-May-2005 at 00:50
|
Phallanx Well you certainly seem to have had the field to yourself recently.
Yes, yes, but two points. First Timarchus, if you take Aeschines at face value; he manifestly did engage in homosexual prostitution and then subsequently had a career as a rather prominent politician. Under the law you are citing he should have been libel not just for removal of his active citizenship, but for death. He was of course, not put to death, which brings up the second point. The Timarchus trial was hardly a modern sodomey case, Aeschines charged Timarchus with a whole laundry list of offenses, some actionable, some hearsay: prostitution, wasting his inheritance (and thus not being able to pay for liturgies or taxes), corruption and extortion (from allied states), etc. Since we know only that Timarchus lost, it is rather difficult to say what swayed every juror or the majority of them. The issue is even more blurry when you remember what was really happening was part of the political fallout of the battle between Demosthenes and Aeschines, how many jurors were really voting for or against renewed hostility to Macedonia (Demosthenes via his ally Timarchus) or for peace with Macedonia (for Aeschines, and against the allies of Demosthenes)? In addition, you have also failed to address the fact that several (at least 3) Athenian citizens who were willing to pay for and use the services of Timarchus, faced no penalty or censure. If the issue was homosexuality, not prostitution, one would rather expect a modern sodomy law were both participants in the homosexual act were guilty of a crime. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 16-May-2005 at 03:17
|
Interesting, but you probably missed the fact that Aeschynes in 1.45 tells us: "I remember that we are in court, and so I have drafted an affidavit for Misgolas, true and not indelicate in phrasing, as I flatter myself. For I do not set down the actual name of the thing that Misgolas used to do to him, nor have I written anything else that would legally incriminate a man who has testified to the truth" So actually we see that Aeschynes saves the witness from any punishment and probably does the same for the others, even though we have no way of knowing what actually happened to them. But even if he didn't he clarifies the issue in 1.72: "Now what man is so reckless that he would be willing to give in plain words testimony which, if the testimony be true, would inevitably amount to information against himself as liable to extreme punishment?" As for Timarchus. Isn't this exactly what Aeschynes is trying to prove? That he's guilty. The whole point is that the jury didn't know of his actions otherwise he would have faced the penalties and the whole speech would have been worthless, since he couldn't press charges on Aeschynes anyway. Specific sodomy law??? But as I said the text is crystal clear on the topic homosexuality. Well maybe I didn't so I'll post it again. Aeschynes uses the law of "grafi eterisios". "eterisios" from "eteros" or as seen in texts "hetairos"= comrade, companion. we also find the well known "hetaires", what we concider today, thanks to all this mistranslation as whores, but the word clearly gives a different meaning, so they should actually be concidered companions or I think the more apropriate meaning would be something similar to mistress. If the argument was only about his selling his body (as a whore does) then the law should have used the term "porni" from "pernimi"= "to sell" and has the meaning of whore , prostitute. The very FACT that in 1.29 Aeschynes uses the words "H peporneumenos,”physin, H etairikos:”= "either prostituted or has became a "comrade/companion" (in short, his bitch) source for all texts: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-May-2005 at 15:52
|
Antique homosexuality is largely a myth. The boundaries of intimacy between men were simply wider, and there is nothing unique about it, you'll find the same kind of male bonding in sources dating from the strictly catholic middle ages. I assure you, the churchmen and monks behind these texts certainly weren't writing homosexual romances, though it might seem so to a modern reader. No, they were merely carrying on the traditions handed down to them from antiquity.
It's a lost sensibility, nothing more. ------------- |
Posted By: jiangweibaoye
Date Posted: 16-May-2005 at 17:31
|
To all, When I read that Alexander the Great was Gay/Bisexual, I found it hard to believe. But that fact is constantly being reinforced. Then I found out that the Spartan culture, Gay activities was manditory. I guess it is part of the culture of Greece and Rome at the time. I have nothing against that lifestyle, but when you bring it up, some people are very defensive about it. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 16-May-2005 at 18:39
|
It's logical to be "defensive" about the whole issue since it was obviously invented by homos for one simple reason. As I've mentioned before, the Hellines have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their sick nature than by connecting it to the greatness of the Hellinic civilization and thus legitimise same-sex? They intentionally distort texts to connect Alexander to their "club", I read in another topic something about Hitler and the Nazi, I've seen the names Donatello, Da Vinci, King James............... I've seen, the whole pathetic list of historic figures they attempt to connect to their pervesion, its literally endless. Hitler and Nazis, I honestly couldn't care less, but how do you support this, why distort texts, what is your objective?? Do the rest of us go around telling everyone about what we'd prefer to do with a tall blonde, blue-eyed 38-26-36, endless legs......????  These are the questions we "homophobes" have. (homophobe NOT with the meaning of fear of them or of becoming one of them but with that of contempt !!!) Once again about Alexander, From our 3 Hellinic sources on Alexander (Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch) we never once see the mistranslated terms "Erates' or "Eromenos" (according to the mistranslated theory the two members of the homo relationship) but we do find the words: "philos"= friend or "malista timomenos"= very honoured. Alexander himself calls Hephaestion "Philalexandros"= friend of Alexander. And in the Latin sources (Curtius and Justin) we find "amicus"=friendly but we never once find "amans"= a lover. So where do they come to the conclusion that he was homo/bi? But of course by using wanna-be, self proclaimed historians that are homos themselves. Anyway, to the Spartans "Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Plutarch "Ancient Customs of the Spartans", 7. 237 - c.) ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-May-2005 at 05:44
|
Yes, Phallanx, problem is, many modern readers interpret any sign of strong male friendship as possible homosexuality. With such an outset there will be no end to the speculation, it's history tabloid-style.
Sadly, some historians also hold to these beliefs, I remember my history books in senior high claimed homosexuality was rife in ancient Spartan military. No wonder people go off believing such things. Not that I have anything against homosexuals, I have several homosexual friends. One should seek the facts with neither homophobic contempt nor homophile wishful thinking. ------------- |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 07:55
Since this is the only relative topic to our prior discussion, I'll take it here.
Nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.. While I too am also sure that throughout history there were a most probably large number of both bi- and homo-, the whole point is, that we can't say since there were then he also was one of them, but as in every historic issue/topic, we must present proof. Otherwise, we are just distorting historic facts. It would be similar to someone of the 25th cent. saying that since homosexuals undoubtably exist today (then), then you too or I am (were since it would be a future discussion) a homo also, simply because they did exist. Where is the logic and what is the proof to support such a claim???
Well Rome was a totally different Empire to that of Alexander's but again, how does this prove he was a homo- or bi- when none of the historians of his time mention nothing remotely close??
This is the whole point, there was no term to attested describe homosexuals-ality.. even the term "homosexual" is seen first attested in "1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=same" class="crossreference - same ) + Latin-based sexual (see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sex" class="crossreference - sex )." "The noun is first recorded 1912 in Eng., 1907 in French. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. The alternative homophile (1960) was coined in ref. to the homosexual regarded as a person of a particular social group, rather than a sexual abnormality. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969." etymonline.com Once you connect these and the previous dates to Walter Pater (mentioned before) everything starts to fall in place.
Well Sappho's poems aren't described as erotic (not in the conventional form) but as describing a form of "terror", she never describes the feelings as we usually see with terms of joy, happiness..etc.. but as a torment. She never describes the joyfull feeling seen in others but an emptyness, pain and misery left from emense passion... What is even more interesting is that we only have 1 whole poem by her, saved by Dionysos of Hallicarnasos.. while the rest are mere fragments that hardly allow us to understand the topic, let alone see homosexual emotions.. Also quite interesting as I've already mentioned is that Ovid, Athenaios and Suidas among others, speaking of her love with Phaon. We know for a fact that she was a mother and wife that wrote "epithalamia"= "wedding songs" that spoke, not of lesbian affairs but of the beauty of young girls that were about to become wifes and mothers themselves. It's nothing more than a convenient distortion of the real facts to serve the cause of the specific community.. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 09:11
|
Phallanx, I think you are tad bit too homophobic... that leads you to rather peculiar conclusions, even though you are making a strong case about the fabrication of the "All Greeks were Homos" myth. There are a gazillion references in both Greek and Roman sources talking rather openly about male homosexuality - and significantly fewer about female homosexuality (that could be intepredet quite easily: the position of women in the graeco-roman world was not in the center of the stage). Aristophanes in all his works makes several points about homosexula. He mocks them, talks about lakkoproktous and male prostitutes selling their arse to the highest bidder, he mocks several prominent Athenias of his era that in one way or another have indulged in homosexual activity. In most cases, those "immoral" ones are supporting a female hetera and are having affairs with paides as well. The very fact of so many references means that homosexuality (in reality: bisexuality, or more often pansexuality, panhedonism) was not only present but also widespread in Athens (the data we have for most of the other city-states is not conclusive and even the references about them come mostly from the Athenians). This is something one can't deny. BUT: The fact that Aristophanes was a comedian with a mass appeal, meaning his works were meant to entertain the common Athenian citizen, not some intellectual elite or members of a single cult or whatever, and in these works he was badmouthing homosexuality as much as he did, can only lead us to understand that the practice was not socially accepted and was by most viewed as "an upper class vice" and not like some kind of semi-sacred institution as several historians (or "historians") want us to believed. Not excactly marginal, or outcast, people in Athens that would indulge in homosexual activity were indeed treated as straying from normality. but, there is another BUT: without the strict anti-homosexual Christian religion (one could expect only that by a tribal ultra-patriarchic "religion" that has become an ecumenical dogma - the survival of the "tribe" commands high fertility and if men screw other men they don't fertilize women) the ancient Greeks as all ancient urban mediteranean societies, had a much, much greater tolerance for activities straying from the sexual norm. This tolerance was even greater when the person straying was a prominent member of the society - more gossip, more badmouthing, but more impunity too. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 09:17
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 09:24
|
Hardly proof for anything. Alex didn't have any real brothers and grew up with Hephestion as an extremly close friend from childhood on. Could be the mourning of a dear brother, no? People have done similar peculiar things upon grief of their father, mother, brother, sister... doesn't have to be a sexual relationship. It's just guesswork, we'll never know if those two actually had an affair and - frankly - I wouldn't give a rats arse if they had or not. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 10:19
|
Tad bit too... I couldn't be more actually Well yes Aristophanes does mention "lakkoproktos" once, he uses the term "euruproktos" some 8-10 times and "kunaidos some 15 more... Aristophanes actually manages to ridicule homosexuals in every occasion he mentions them, even when talking about the God Dionysus in "Frogs". The words "lakkoproktos", "euruproktos" and "kunaidos", are all used by Aristophanes to actually insult and ridicule homos.. Unless someone is ready to conceder that being called "hollow-assed", "wide-assed" and "shameless" is some kind of compliment. I will agree, as you correctly pointed out, that it's a play meant to entertain.. so, concerning Aristophanes, Euripides or any other comedy and drama creator, it is completely wrong and inappropriate to use theatric plays as historical sources. A play is just a play, it servers the need of learning together with entertainment. The most accurate sources are the myths themselves. It is equivalent to being a historian of the 41st century and attempting to study history of our times bases upon comedy shows. Further proof in support of your "strying from normality" would be the myth of Laios. Oidipus was the son of Laios, Laios was the first "kunaidos" according to Hellinic mythology/history. Laios had abducted and raped Chrysippos, for this Pelops cursed him to be killed by his own son. So we find that the first ever recorded "pederast" was cursed and due to this curse, his whole family line was wiped out thanks to his "unatural activity". We find that Oidipus married his mother (without knowing it) she kills herself and he blinds himself. The 4 children born by this unwanted marriage are also doomed, the brothers Eteocles and Polynices fall in battle killed by eachothers hand. Antigone is sentensed to death and Ismene asks for the same fate as her sister. Justice is served for what their sick grandfather (Laios) had done. When we know of such customs being passed down from generation to generation and plays written pertaining this exact myth. It is hard to believe that they would go against these traditions.. *What are the peculiar conclusions ? Constantine XI This is actually the exact same basis of the theory about Achilles and Patroclos being a homo couple.. Achilles mourning after Patroclos' death.. So whoever is in the damned position of losing a very close friend, someone he's gone through thick and thin and his reaction is similar to the two mentioned is a homosexual... I guess I qualify then  ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 16:50
|
A huge outpouring of grief is understandable, but actually sacrificing
an entire nation which had surrendered to Alexander peacefully? This
type of devotion and post-death religious dedication bears alot of
resemblance to how Hadrian mourned his favourite Antinous, and we must
ask ourselves why such especial mourning was reserved for Hephaistion.
We find Alexander showing far less grief at the death of his other
companions, clearly Hephaistion must have done something to have
received such favoured attention........ And no, I don't really care either. ------------- |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 18:32
|
Well not really sure to which nation you are refering to.. would it be
his "campaign" against the Kossaioi but they weren't sacrificed but
simply subdued.. The mourning after Hephaistion's death is actually nothing compared to his reaction after the murder of Cleitus, where as Plutarch tells us, if it wasn't for his body-guards he would have driven the exact same spear he used to kill Cleitus through his throat.. Speculations aren't proof ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: HistoryGuy
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 20:48
|
I read that most Roman men were bisexual, meanwhile most women were fully straight.... It is weird. I am bisexual myself, but I find it as the opposite today... ------------- هیچ مردی تا به حال به شما درباره خدا گفته. |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2005 at 23:13
|
disgusting! ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 09:56
14 out of 15 supreme rulers of Western Civilization seemed not to mind it. ------------- |
Posted By: Nomed
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 01:44
|
I'm going to admit first that I haven't read this whole thread and second that this is my first post Anyway, relationships in general in archaic societes typically were very different from what we understand today. Many common things that we would consider homosexual today were normal and agreed upon then, such as men grooming eachother or holding hands. Take a look at Sparta, in my opinion the greastest greek city state. A society that is still considered by many stagnant, I call stable. Besides the heliots, equality was most widespread in Sparta for both men and women. It was also common that strongest bonds were made between men and men and women and women. Men were men's lovers but not in the same sense as we use today. This way when you go into battle you will not only act more organized, but fight harder to save your friend/lover/brother. It was seen as weak to hold strong relationships in this way with someone of the opposite sex, or at least that's what I understand.  |
Posted By: Nomed
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 01:46
| BTW, Alexander sucks. He was a stupid kid who just stole daddy's plans and throne. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 05:56
|
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. Plutarchs Lives Lycurgus XVII 4 Their lovers and favorers, too, had a share in the young boys 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. Plutarchs 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 Lacedæmon 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..
Totally different topic but it would be interesting to hear your arguments (in the correct one) ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 06:12
|
On the "kinaidos" issue. In my my mind the ancient Greeks described in this way, only those homosexuals who were "feminine". If you were a respectable citizen and took part in the city's life (not an "idiotis"), then no-one would dream of telling you how to behave in your personal life or in a symposium. As simple as that! Of course if you broke the law and started "diaftheirein" your neigbors kids, then things could go "very" wrong for you, especially if he was rich enough not to accept a bribe for his silence. (Just a few thoughts of mine) ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 08:13
|
According to the law 'grafh etairisios' seen
in Aescynes' Against Timarchus we know that whoever had gone public
with his sexual preference was : Not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death (19-20) As I've said the text has been mistranslated and believed to only speak of prostitutes when he clearly says : 1.29 "H peporneumenos,phusin, H etairikos:= "either prostituted or has became a "comrade/companion/mistress" So the law obviously is refering to both prostitutes and homosexuals.. As for 'Kinaidos' the Suda online tells us : http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?login=guest&enlogin=guest&db=REAL&field=adlerhw_gr&searchstr=kappa,1635 - i Translation: Licentious, soft. And in the Epigrams: "as of a great kinaidos."[1] Greek Original: i: , . : . Kinaida Translation: Also kinaidia ["perversion, deviance"]. Shamelessness. [Note] that Chelidon was called the kinaidos of Cleopatra.[1] Greek Original: Kinaida: kai Kinaidia: hê anaischuntia. hoti ho tês Kleopatras kinaidos Chelidôn ekaleito. Notes: For kinaidos - Latin cinaedus - and its cognates see also kappa 1635. It has been termed "etymologically mysterious" (K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality [London 1978] p.17) and its exact meaning, if any, is still a matter of debate amongst scholars. J. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes (London 1997), argues strongly for relating this and associated terms to sexual appetites of any kind which focus on the anus; N. Fisher (Aeschines, Against Timarchos, translated with introduction and commentary: Oxford 2001) 45ff and passim seeks to re-establish orthodox phallic associations. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 08:36
|
You've really dwelled on that stuff Phalanx... this is rather interesting, seeing that you loathe homosexuals as much as you do. Going to direct a very good friend of mine, who is homosexual, to read your posts. He's also quite a scholar and maybe he'll share some insight with you... dunno how you'll take it, of course
|
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 08:59
|
Well my personal feelings/beliefs are beyond the topic, my interest in
this topic, as in all others pertaining to Hellas is simply based on my
deep interest in ancient Hellas and how some versions of history are
presented.. Ancient Hellas, that has been intentionally used by clearly manipulating texts to prove that someting was a norm, that this sexual preference was accepted, when in reality the whole situation is quite different.. (no one is arguing it never existed, just that it was neither a norm nor widely accepted) As long as I don't see manipulation of texts and we 'play' based on originals and not some wanna-be's presented translations, I honestly would find it quite interesting.. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Nomed
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 13:27
| I don't think you understood my post of maybe it was just because I represented it quickly and inadequately. I more or less agree with the way you are looking at it Phallanx, but I was using the terms of homosexual today and not back then. I just wanted to point out that male/male and female/female bonds OF FRIENDSHIP at the time were expressed very differently, which caused a lot of scholars who looked back on these texts to declare that they were all homosexual. |
Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2007 at 13:41
Can you please direct me to sources about this? I'm a beginner, but when I read e.g. Tacitus or Suetonius they both show disdain towards homosexuality. On the other hand, if it's not allowed to be the passive partner in Rome, all homosex relationships (as we see them today) must be considered bad??? |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2007 at 15:54
Hi Matt, I have read Suetonius and I don't recall him mentioning homosexuality in a negative light at all. I got through about half of Tacitus and couldnt find anything in there in the form of negativity towards it. Could you provide a passage from one of the author's which you think shows this? It was not that you were not allowed to be the passive partner, but that if you were a man of high office and standing that you were not meant to be passive. So a master was not meant to be passive with his slave, but the opposite was quite acceptable. An equite was not meant to be passive with a pleb, but the opposite was quite acceptable. The older male was not meant to be passive with a younger male of the same social ranking, etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2008 at 19:51
Ok, from Suetonius; Augustus 68. In early youth he incurred the reproach of sundry shameless acts. Sextus Pompey taunted him with effeminacy; Mark Antony with having earned adoption by his uncle through unnatural relations; (...) Claudius 33. He was immoderate in his passion for women, but wholly free from unnatural vice. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html#noteA - |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 04:49
|
Thankyou for that Matt.
I have both texts at home but currently my home computer is dead and my internet has been cut, I am only able to get on the net sporadically. I will endeavour to address the passages you quoted when my connection is re-established. ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 10:54
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.  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 18:54
An example from Tacitus: Tacitus praises in his book Germania the high morale of the germans, among this he describes how those convicted of corpore infames were buried alive in a swamp (Germania, 12). |
Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 13:57
Still would like an answer from what source/sources this opinion about "The ancients (including Rome) had a different viewpoint regarding homosexuality. It only became a slur IF you were the passive member in the relationship." is coming from. |
Posted By: nova roma
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 12:01
|
This thread has been an interesting read. I don't see how homosexuality could really be "rampant" in ancient Rome seeing as only about 7% of the population in any given society turns out gay. I don't see how or why it would be a larger percentage than today, given the idea that people are BORN gay, that is. I have yet to see any real evidence of heterosexual people turning gay just because they grew up in a "gay friendly" society |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 17:25
I agree and much of my research has come to the same conclusion Yiannis. I took a two quarter class about classical Greece and the second quarter took half the class to Greece, my first trip to my ancient homeland. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 19:05
Basically, you are right, of course, about gays. However, the question relates I think rather to non-gays having homosexual sexual relationships.
That number varies tremendously from society to society (in the narrow sense of 'society' e.g. between in prison and the outside, or between boys' boarding schools and co-ed schools).
Ancient Greece for the most part segregated its women vary carefully, which would tend in any society to increase the number of non-gay men having homosexual relations.
It's a mistake to think only gay men have homosexual relationships.
(I said 'men' above, but of course the same applies to women in segregated situations.) ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 03:31
I can only agree with the above.
As an example, let's take the USA in the 1940s. Here is a rather Christian society which is intolerant of homosexual activity to the point of making it a serious criminal offence in most states (even today it remains a criminal offence in many states). Homosexuality in any form is decried as morally reprehensible and carries a strong stigma of social rejection. And yet the studies by Kinsey in this decade found that 37% of males would engage in homosexual activity to the point of achieving orgasm.
So then take ancient Hellas, with its segregation of females, encouragement of pedastry, absence of a homophobic Abrahamic religion (infact Hellenic religion included homosexual relationships amongst its gods and heroes). While not everyone would have been "gay" (and by this I mean men who are exclusively attracted to other men), a substantial proportion of the population did engage in homosexual activity. ------------- |
Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:38
Other studies haven't - as far as I know - been able to come up with figures as high as Kinsey did. Maybe a society intolerant of homosexual activity on the contrary promotes homosexuality? |