05-29-2009, 06:35 AM
There is something missing from our modern day understanding of sexuality. It is that through most of human history, sex was an act of one person dominating another and bringing them under their control. The closest thing we have in our modern society is the sex that occurs in Criminal Prisons. In that context it is not likely that Achilles and Patroklos could have had sexual relations and both retained their status as warriors. It is entirely likely that both Achilles and Patroklos would have had sex with lower class males or females without negative consequence.
The relationships that developed in 5th century Athens between men and boys, and set a model for the rest of Greece, seem to be an entirely different animal. That was a mentor/student relationship. The mentor was not suppose to actually penetrate the boy. The idea behind that relationship was idealization. The physical form of the young boy was considered to be ideal, but he lacked knowledge. The knowledge of the older man was considered to be ideal, but he lacked an ideal physical form. The association of the two transferred the positive qualities of one to the other. The man/boy association ended when the boy went into the army and became a man himself.
We know from one of Socrates dialogues that Socrates rejected homosexuality. I am not sure if he is rejecting the man/boy relationships or homosexuality among grown men. I have gotten the impression that by Socrates time an elite culture had developed within Athens that actually stretched the bounds of acceptable homosexual behavior. The difference being a man having sex with a slaveboy... vs having sex with another free citizen. I suspect this may be what Socrates is actually condemning. It seems odd to me that he would condemn the man/boy association since it was not suppose to be sexual anyway.
It is interesting to note that in Greek mythology, there is only one two example of homosexuality. This is interesting since the Greeks anthropomorphism their gods. The fact that homosexuality among grown men does not appear often in mythology says something about what would be normal society. I suspect that any homosexual trend that appeared in Athens would have been limited to the elite and developed out of a feeling that the Athenians were above social restrictions. We see something similar to this today among celebrities.
I believe many of the plays in Socrates time where meant to be spoofs. We know for certain that they were political. They often made fun of politicians. I believe one cleaver one did not dare attack Pericles directly... but portrayed his concubine as a prostitute in an effort to get at him when she was actually of noble heritage but a foreigner (non-Athenian). The plays often took parts from earlier works, like the Iliad, and expanded on them. If the man on man homosexual trend was growing in Athens, it would also make sense to that the plays would have played up to that in an effort to gain favor. I believe that the audience determined who was the best playwright every year. I do not consider as fact any information created in the Classical and Hellenistic period relating to back the Mycenaean era. The Homeric epics themselves are suspect to later influences since they were committed to writing sometime around the 8th century BC.
There is something very telling in the victory of Philip II of Macedon over the Thibans, where he made a speech saying that they should not be looked down upon for their homosexuality. The Thibans fought in pairs of males lovers and died together. Philip II speech hints that while man and male-slave relationships may have been common, homosexual relationships between free men where not.
Philip II's speech supports the idea that the common view of sex in the ancient world was of one person in a higher standing dominating another person of a lower standing. It did not matter if the one dominated was male or female as long as their status was clear. Sex between equals upset this balance.
The relationships that developed in 5th century Athens between men and boys, and set a model for the rest of Greece, seem to be an entirely different animal. That was a mentor/student relationship. The mentor was not suppose to actually penetrate the boy. The idea behind that relationship was idealization. The physical form of the young boy was considered to be ideal, but he lacked knowledge. The knowledge of the older man was considered to be ideal, but he lacked an ideal physical form. The association of the two transferred the positive qualities of one to the other. The man/boy association ended when the boy went into the army and became a man himself.
We know from one of Socrates dialogues that Socrates rejected homosexuality. I am not sure if he is rejecting the man/boy relationships or homosexuality among grown men. I have gotten the impression that by Socrates time an elite culture had developed within Athens that actually stretched the bounds of acceptable homosexual behavior. The difference being a man having sex with a slaveboy... vs having sex with another free citizen. I suspect this may be what Socrates is actually condemning. It seems odd to me that he would condemn the man/boy association since it was not suppose to be sexual anyway.
It is interesting to note that in Greek mythology, there is only one two example of homosexuality. This is interesting since the Greeks anthropomorphism their gods. The fact that homosexuality among grown men does not appear often in mythology says something about what would be normal society. I suspect that any homosexual trend that appeared in Athens would have been limited to the elite and developed out of a feeling that the Athenians were above social restrictions. We see something similar to this today among celebrities.
I believe many of the plays in Socrates time where meant to be spoofs. We know for certain that they were political. They often made fun of politicians. I believe one cleaver one did not dare attack Pericles directly... but portrayed his concubine as a prostitute in an effort to get at him when she was actually of noble heritage but a foreigner (non-Athenian). The plays often took parts from earlier works, like the Iliad, and expanded on them. If the man on man homosexual trend was growing in Athens, it would also make sense to that the plays would have played up to that in an effort to gain favor. I believe that the audience determined who was the best playwright every year. I do not consider as fact any information created in the Classical and Hellenistic period relating to back the Mycenaean era. The Homeric epics themselves are suspect to later influences since they were committed to writing sometime around the 8th century BC.
There is something very telling in the victory of Philip II of Macedon over the Thibans, where he made a speech saying that they should not be looked down upon for their homosexuality. The Thibans fought in pairs of males lovers and died together. Philip II speech hints that while man and male-slave relationships may have been common, homosexual relationships between free men where not.
Philip II's speech supports the idea that the common view of sex in the ancient world was of one person in a higher standing dominating another person of a lower standing. It did not matter if the one dominated was male or female as long as their status was clear. Sex between equals upset this balance.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
