Homosexuailty in Rome?

Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by nova roma 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   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.)

Originally posted by Yiannis 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 . Homosexual behaviour was mostly restricted between teenagers and young men that would act as lovers and mentors (Eromenos and Erastes). It seems that penetration was not the case here but rather more of a Platonic kind or love. 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?

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.

Originally posted by Cornellia 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.

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.

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!"

Originally posted by Constantine XI Could you provide a passage from one of the author's which you think shows this?

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; (...)
71. Of these charges or slanders (whichever we may call them) he easily refuted that for unnatural vice by the purity of his life at the time and afterwards;(...)
 
Claudius

33. He was immoderate in his passion for women, but wholly free from unnatural vice.
 
Otho

2. Having through her wormed his way into Nero's good graces, he easily held the first place among the emperor's friends because of the similarity of their characters; but according to some, also through immoral relations.
 
Vitellius

3. He spent his boyhood and early youth at Capreae among the wantons of Tiberius, being branded for all time with the nickname Spintria (...)
 
Titus

7. (...) he was also suspected of riotous living, since he protracted his revels until the middle of the night with the most prodigal of his friends; likewise of unchastity because of his troops of catamites and eunuchs (...)
 
Some of his most beloved paramours, although they were such skilful dancers that they later became stage favourites, he not only ceased to cherish any longer, but even to witness their public performances.

Originally posted by Cornellia The ancients (including Rome) had a different viewpoint regarding homosexuality.  It only became a slur IF you were the passive member in the relationship.

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???

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..

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 :

 �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.




Edited 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 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..

BTW, Alexander sucks.  He was a stupid kid who just stole daddy's plans and throne

Totally different topic but it would be interesting to hear your arguments (in the correct one)

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.