Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Pardon the subject, but one of my colleagues at work mentioned that in Greek and Roman times homosexual behavior was widely practiced between you males (teenage) and adult males as well as adult male to adult male.
He would like to know if there is any evidence for this being true according to the sources or is it a modern way of interpreting some of the texts that appear to suggest such behavior where in fact it is not true.
Paolo
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 2,366
Threads: 187
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Paolo,
Comparing Greek to Roman attitudes is like comparing apples to oranges.
Homosexuality (i.e. as a "lifestyle") was universally seen as unthinkable. What was more practiced was bisexuality.
As far as the Romans go : male bisexuality was not widespread and seems to have been limited to the upper class (ditto for the Greeks) but was not something to be flaunted. Julius Caesar always publicly denied having homosexual relations with King Nicomedes. Suetonius records that this charge against Caesar was frequently quoted against him by his political enemies and that it was a "dark stain on his reputation." (Suetonius, Julius Caesar 49)
Then there's the Roman law (Lex Scantinia) against pederasty which proscribes the death penalty for any offenders.
The Romans also held women to higher standards than men. Female bisexuality was a horrid concept. This can be read in Latin literature (e.g. Martial)
As for the Greeks, you may want to open up a thread in the 'Greek' section of RAT. But in Plato's 'Republic' there's an ambiguous passage that may suggest pedestry but it is only spoken of in a passing manner (as if it wasn't uncommon) where men are walking about with their boys. But Xenophon was adamantly against homosexual acts as were all the great Greek philosophers - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
~Theo
Jaime
Posts: 1,667
Threads: 288
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
1
Thanks for the reply. This is what I was looking for overall, not a detailed discussion.
Paolo
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Posts: 1,086
Threads: 72
Joined: Nov 2004
Reputation:
0
Indeed, Wikipedia gets it right, including the controversies. What can not be stressed enough is that homosexual/heterosexual are modern concepts. There is no evidence that the ancients classified sexuality in terms of the object of one's desires. Rather, it appears that sexual desire was seen as a force that could be directed at all manner of objects. Thus, images of Pan or the Satyrs masturbating and having sex with men, women and animals indiscriminately do not indicate perversion through the choice of partners (we are not looking at heterosexual, homosexual and zoophile satyrs, respectively) but utter lack of restraint and self-control. Note that this concept of sexuality is alive and well in popular culture to this day, and increasingly recognised by researchers in numerous fields. (One of the most hated, and most common, questions to male homosexual couples continues to be 'Who is the wife' - a concept the Romans would have understood)
Generally (though not in every instance), the sexual practices and taboos of the ancient world make much more sense when viewed through a prism of power relationships than through the modern perspective of partner choice.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Usually the issue is not if same sex relationships existed, they always did, do and will do.
People tried to use archeolgical evidence to show that ancients were not only tolerant but also very positive on the issue.
The ancient sources can be biased for or against the subject just like ours.
You need to "water down" a lot the translation of Aristophanes to avoid legal problems with tolerance issues for instance.
As I have posted before societies were indulgent every individual important to their economy or defense but not so very tolerant to the "commoner"
Seems a bit like our times.
Kind regards
Posts: 1,189
Threads: 33
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
In the ancient world one's position in the social hierarchy was by far one's most important characteristic. This was true in sexual relationships as in all other areas of life.The "dominator" was judged differently from the "dominated." The same holds true in modern American prison society, which is similarly stratified. The active partner in a male-male relationship is not necissarily cast as homosexual, while the passive partner invariably is. Petronius speaks of the nameless "Catamite" in his novel with clear contempt, while Encolpius and Eumolpus are not condemned for their infatuation with young Giton. Giton himself seems to have been viewed as a bisexual figure quite different from the "catamite." clearly the ancient world had gradations unknown to more modern one-or-the-other definitions that come from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Pecunia non olet
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Which Roman!! author was it again, who wrote the following about the Greeks...
If they cannot have their men or boys they revert to women, and if there are no women to be found they still have their sheep.......
:lol:
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.