Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 1

Timeframe problem

How is "776 BC - 480 BC"... "One thousand years of homosexuality" ?! Haiduc 04:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not finished yet. It will include a partner article on the Hellenistic age. Apollomelos 08:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

objection

Not really sure what the proper process is to post a comment so I hope I don't screw up anything.

There is actually a whole different approach none of you have actually looked into.

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phallanx (talk • contribs) .

I agree completely with the last two paragraphs. This article is biased and rediculous. This is not Greek history. Greek history is the invention of democracy and philosophy, the great architecture, the 300 spartans who stood at Thermopylae and saved western civilization. Greek troops won the first allied victories of both world wars. This is how Greeks get repaid-by having their history erased! Greeks were not gay! This article should just be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cretanpride (talk • contribs) .

I noticed the reference to texts. 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"

Plato's 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.

There is much more to be said but I would like to hear some opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phallanx (talk • contribs) .

I completely agree with what was just said above. Can anyone argue against this? I highly doubt it.66.53.98.122 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for merger

It seems that there are two separate articles covering almost the same subject: Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. Given that expansion and war were quite important in the social life of Ancient Greek city-states, I consider repetition of same information two times unnecessary. Both articles are talking about great warriors, and it seems that information for non-warriors is not that much.

Do you consider merger of two articles a better approach (though it might need some rework of existing texts)? I am going to post this question on both talk pages as parts of the discussion is also going in parallel. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the merge tag since the article on military aspects does not belong here but rather in the Pederasty in ancient Greece article. It will not fit there as that article is already at 33K, but that is another matter. So it looks like it may be best left on its own after all. Haiduc 12:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greeks had small separate military units for homosexuals only, to separate them from the regular army. Links to homosexual discussion pages from serious articles on Greek History are misleading and irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

Neddyseagoon modifications

Removed paragraph:

In the Roman period, homosexuality was only seen as acceptable should a similar age difference be in place. It was acceptable for an adult and masculine Roman to assume the dominant, penetrating role, but not the penetrated, 'female' role - the latter was only acceptable for pre-adolescent slaves or women. An example of this is Hadrian and Antinous - one theory as to why Antinous died was that he had grown a beard (ie reached adulthood) and so it would no longer be acceptable for Hadrian to continue the relationship.

There are a couple of problems with this contribution that hopefully can be resolved. The age difference was a requirement much earlier, Aristophanes mocks the Trojan heroes for being europroktoi (wideassed) and thus unmanly. Also, subsuming all relationships under the rubric of "penetration" is increasingly being questioned as a Doverian conceit, so if we introduce the construct - which we should - it needs to be qualified and the discussion expanded. The interesting theory about Antinous needs to be sourced. And why delete the sentence on the institutionalization of pederasty? Haiduc 11:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Iliad

This statement is totally false and fabricated:

"Many believe the first recorded appearance of such desire was in the Iliad (800 BC)."

Anyone who has read Homer's original work would know that he never ONCE wrote in the Iliad that Achilles and Patroclus were homosexuals. BONK 13 June 2006

I would agree with BONK. Perhaps the point should be made that Homer described a love relationship but not a sexual relationship. Haiduc 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If such a theory is proposed, it should be supported by a secondary source.--Aldux 10:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The following from Skinner's "Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture":

After giving Patroclus permission to wear his armor into battle as a ruse to assist the Greeks, Achilles expresses a wish that both armies, Trojans and Greeks alike, would perish, so that the two of them by themselves might capture Troy (Il. 16.97–100). The apparent callousness and egotism of the remark shocked ancient scholars, who excised it on the grounds that it was a later insertion by someone who thought the pair were lovers (W. M. Clarke 1978: 384–5). Yet the grim fancy suits Achilles’ aggrieved mood, for he is still seething over Agamemnon’s insult. Although it would hardly be reflective of his ordinary state of mind, it shows that at this critical juncture, when he is so caught up in bitter resentment, Patroclus is the only other person who still exists for him. The hero’s subsequent hysterical reaction to the news of his friend’s death, his fanatical thirst for revenge, and his persistent grief and sleeplessness even after Patroclus is buried seemed no less excessive to ancient critics. Modern readers are also struck by his constant embracing and touching of the corpse, his self-confessed longing (pothos, 19.320–21, a word often found in erotic contexts) for the dead man, his stubborn refusal of food and drink, and his mother Thetis’ consoling advice “it is good even to mingle with a woman in love” (24.130–31), where the phraseology might mean either that “even having sex,” along with eating and sleeping, or that “having sex even with a woman,” as opposed to a man, is a good thing. At the very least, the intensity of Achilles’ passion goes far beyond the emotional attachments other males in the epics feel not just for their fellow soldiers but even for their blood kin. In classical Athens, numerous persons familiar with Homer had no doubts about the nature of the friendship. In his lost play Myrmidons, the tragedian Aeschylus represented the distraught Achilles speaking of Patroclus’ thighs (mêrôn) and of their many kisses (frr. 135 and 136 Nauck2); Phaedrus in Plato’s Symposium praises Achilles for being a devoted erômenos who avenges his lover’s death (179e–180b); and in a forensic speech before a jury the orator Aeschines cites the pair as models of temperate and noble love, as opposed to the unrestrained and violent lusts of men like his opponent (1.141–50). However, the Socrates of Xenophon’s Symposium vigorously attacks the presumption of pederasty, saying that Achilles avenges “not a boyfriend but a companion” (hetairos, 8.31). We should also note a real confusion over who was the erastês and who the erômenos among those who inferred such a relationship. Nestor recalls Patroclus’ father advising him to give Achilles good counsel, since he, Patroclus, was the older (11.786); Plato’s Phaedrus therefore chastises Aeschylus for portraying Achilles as the lover. Yet Achilles is clearly the dominant figure in Homer, a fact that absolutely contradicts the protocols of the mentor–protégé relationship on which pederasty was conceptually grounded.9 Halperin (1990: 86–7) points out that classical Athenians were obviously attempting, with great difficulty, to impose a notional framework of man–boy relations familiar to them upon the alien patterns of emotion and behavior displayed by the Homeric heroes. In a sense, their grasp of what is going on between Achilles and Patroclus was as incomplete as ours.

Haiduc 10:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, It's quite obvious from reading the Iliad that Achilleus has it for Hector because he had his wife killed. The one thing that is possibly unusual is that, in all likelihood, Patroclus was the older man, yet he was the eromenos. --Svartalf 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Where does it say in the Illiad that they were gay? Nowhere! You guys are just wrong!Cretanpride 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Order

Quite aside from some misstatements which I will attempt to rectify, I am concerned with the order of the sections in this article. It seems to stand to reason that they should be ranged in order of historical importance. I am sure there will be no disagreement if pederasty is placed first in that sequence. I would suggest that lesbian love comes next, particularly in its Sapphic and Spartan forms, which are also pederastic. That leaves egalitarian relations for last in order of significance, and in the suggested new article order. Comments? Haiduc 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

How the heck can you have "homosexuality" as part of this article when first of the modern ideology of the term did not exist in acient Greece; second of, you call an ancient Greek a "homosexual" and he'll have no clue what your talking about; third of all you try to explain it to them and it wouldn't be the same. Pedeastry I agree with but "homosexuality"? Please. Quest23 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While 'homosexuality' may refer to a 19th century construct, it is also, sometimes uncomfortably, used by historians to describe same-sex sexualities more generally. -Smahoney 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of homosexuality in ancient Greece. Someone has to argue against this rediculous article. I can't believe that after inventing democracy, astronomy, philosophy, science, art, and math, the ancient Greeks would be portrayed like this. All the evidence that is used to show homosexuality in ancient Greece is misinterpreted to support this absurd theory. ~~66.233.19.170 5 August 2006

It would be much more accurate to say there was no heterosexuality in ancient Greece. Haiduc 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me your evidence then. People who support this theory misinterpret works from Greek literature such as the Illiad which has no mention of homosexuality. People say that Achilles and Patroclus were homosexuals when there is absolutely no evidence to support it. If homosexuality occurred in Greece than show me some proof. Oh and if there was no such thing as heterosexuality than how did the Greeks reproduce. ~~66.233.19.170 6 August 2006

Erm, have you read Plato's Republic? Or Meno? -Smahoney 06:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in those works that brings up homosexuality. It is either misinterpreted or translated in a wrong way. There was not even talk about homosexuality in Ancient Greece until recent years. The reason for this is because homosexuals today are trying to show to the world that being gay is okay so they turn to Ancient Greece to justify it. I mean if the Ancient Greeks did so many great thing and if you can prove they were gay, then being gay must be okay. Face the facts! Homosexuality was not commonplace in Ancient Greece. Stop being ignorant and spreading lies. Pretty soon you will say Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were gay. You won't stop there, you will probably go on to say Winston churchill and FDR were gay. It will never stop! ~~66.53.98.122

Clearly, the following guideline is appropriate regarding this conversation: Will continuing it make the article any better? If no, then don't engage any further. -Smahoney 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying that there needs to be more evidence in the article. This is all based on misinterpretations and is not very credible.

I'll give you that the article needs citations, but the "misinterpretation" "theory" is not credible. -Smahoney 08:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not misinterpreted than can you find several sources that make it very clear they are talking about homosexuality? I have found that all the sources so far are quite ambiguous and can have several meanings. ~~66.53.98.122

This article seems completely biased in favor of those who beleive that homosexuality was common in ancient Greece. We need to hear the other side of the argument. ~~Creteanpride

I understand that the idea that homosexuality existed in ancient Greece makes many modern Greeks uncomfortable, but this is not a new idea. Here is a brief quote from a book, from the middle of a paragraph about marriage and relationships: "Indeed, the romantic attachments that we do hear of are with boys and young men, and of these we hear very frequently: homosexual love was regarded as a normal thing and treated as frankly as heterosexual love. (Like the other sort, it had its higher and its lower aspect.) Plato has some fine passages describing the beauty and the modesty of young lads, and the tenderness and respect with which the men treated them. [footnote: Those who find this topic interesting or important are referred to Hans Licht, Sexual Life in Ancient Greece.]" This quote is from H. D. F. Kitto's The Greeks (p. 220 in my Pelican paperback edition), revised in 1957, first published in 1951, and still in print as a standard work on ancient Greek culture. Licht's book was published in 1952. My point is, this is a very mainstream view of ancient Greek culture, and has been held in academic circles for a long time. (And, not that it matters, Prof. Kitto had a wife and two children.) --Brianyoumans 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did Kitto get his information? What he just said is unproven. None of Plato's works talk about homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it in ancient Greek. I have read republic and the main theme in that book is obtaining knowledge and virtue. 66.53.98.122 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not taught this way in Greece and the idea did not come into effect until the 1900's. Did it take that long to figure it out. Greek literature has always been there to read. There have been books published to support the argument against it. Take a look at this book. The review is not very informative of what the book contains, but it's contents show just how unsupported the claim that Greeks practiced same sex relationship are. [1] Cretanpride 02:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Thornton on Greek Pederasty

Perhaps you made an error in linking? The book I see linked here is Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality by Bruno Thornton. The 14-page preview provided at Amazon certainly does not make any such point, despite its mention of "cute boys" like Eros and Ganymede. Nor is such a point made by any of the many passages that use the terms 'homoerotic' or 'homosexuality' (using their 'search the book' feature) -- i.e., "the unnamed friend of Socrates who tweaks him for still being attracted to Alcibiades because his beard has begun to show. The presence of hair on a boy should be a sign that his homoerotic phase had ended and that he should be pursuing women." Thornton does, apparently, argue for the primacy of heterosexual relationships in Ancient Greece, which is not the point. Your statement that "it's contents show just how unsupported the claim that Greeks practiced same sex relationship are" is not at all credible. It seems like you heard something about the book, but never got around to reading it. Bustter 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the review I got-

Thornton offers two chapters on Greek homosexuality which, hopefully, should demolish these myths once and for all. He shows convincingly that there is no evidence in their literature for the supposition that the Greeks viewed the sexual penetration of men and women in the same light. Sex between males was an offence against the laws of hubris and of sexual outrage. The passive homosexual, the male who allowed himself to be anally penetrated, was viewed with "shame" and "outrage". Plato and Xenophon both viewed sex between males as a depravity that all right-thinking men should abhor as much as they would incest. Aristotle saw homosexuality as a deformed condition brought about either by natural disorder or by habit, but something that was decidedly "abnormal". There are homosexual characters in some of Aristophanes' plays but they are associated with corruption and decadence. In Knights, Aristophanes is saying that corruption in Athens has reached the stage where the shameless pursuit of all appetites, including active and passive homosexuality, is the most important qualification for a politician.

On the one hand, Thornton argues, the Greek philosophers saw homosexuality as an historical innovation, one that was "contrary to nature", a result of the depraved human imagination and vulnerability to pleasure. On the other hand, dramatists like Euripides saw it as a "product of nature" which those afflicted found hard to control. But even in the latter cases, homosexuality is portrayed as a crime that unleashes destructive forces that overthrow reason and law. For instance, in Euripides' play Chrysippus , Laius, the father of Oedipus, kidnaps and rapes the son of Pelops and thereby initiates a chain reaction of erotic disorder culminating in the incest and parricide of Oedipus and the blight of Thebes that destroys the life of humans, herds and crops alike.

How, then, did the myth of Greek bisexuality gain any currency? Partly by misinterpretation of the literary remains, Thornton argues, and partly by selective use of evidence. Foucault's reading, for example, omitted the great volume of classical drama and poetry and was confined to a narrow selection of fourth century medical and philosophical works. While it is apparently true that there was an aristocratic homosexual tradition, this represented only a tiny elitist minority at any time. The concept of "boy love" is derived from a real tradition in which older aristocratic men did act as educational and social mentors for adolescent youths from other aristocratic families. However, the notion that this relationship involved homosexual intercourse would have been abhorrent to all concerned. It is true there are illustrations on vases depicting homosexual acts between older men and boys, but there is no reason to believe these tell us any more about what was representative in ancient Greece than mail order magazines of child pornography indicate what is normal and accepted in our own times.

Reading Thornton's discussion, it remains possible—perhaps even likely—that Socrates himself had homosexual inclinations, since he speaks of his struggle to overcome his desire for the beautiful youth Alcibiades. Plato nonetheless assures us that Socrates did not succumb to this temptation and did not act out his desires. However, the possibility that one of the great thinkers of ancient Greece might have been a closet homosexual tells us nothing about other Greek men of the era, nor about the natural instincts of men at large.The argument by Foucault and Katz—some men in ancient Greece were homosexual, therefore the sexual taste of the human species is androgynous—is not only spurious logic but an insult to the kind of reasoning that Socrates gave his life to sustain.

I suppose that is not at all good enough for you guys either.Cretanpride 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done a good job of proving what Bustter said above: you've heard something about this book, but you haven't read it. However, when you quote so extensively from another website, as you've just done, it might be a good idea to provide a citation. You're quoting Keith Windschuttle, "The Myths of Eros", The Partisan Review, Fall (4), 1997. (Windschuttle used the same text in a 1998 article, "The Higher Sodomy").

I haven't read Thornton's book either, but I noticed this quote from Kirkus Reviews that appears on the Amazon page for Thornton's book: "His arguments would be offensive were they not so silly...This book loses sight of its valid points in a fumbling attempt to imitate the contrarian Camille Paglia..."

By the way, Thornton's first name is Bruce, not Bruno. I've changed the section title to reflect this. Now, if you look around the web for Bruce Thornton, you discover that he's professor of classics at Cal State Fresno, and that he's a frequent contributor to the political website CaliforniaRepublic.org. I think it would be fair to say that he's got a political bias which is reflected in his scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of where he stands politically, he is a scholar, and if I include his book as a reference, there should be nothing wrong with that. 66.53.98.122 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a little something wrong with including a reference to a book you haven't read. A bit of Thornton's book is available on books.google.com, here's a nice quote: "This obsession with sexual outrage and shame creates an obvious contradiction in the ritual of pederasty. For if the boy is to reciprocate for the beneits he has received--flattering attention and education in nobility, not to mention the more mundane material gifts--how can he do so? If he submits to physical gratification, particularly anal penetration, he has allowed himself to be outraged, and he has drawn perilously close to the kinaidos, the male sexual bogey. This contraction explains the anxiety that permeates discussions of pederasty in our sources..." This hardly sounds like an argument that pederasty didn't happen; in fact, a reference to "the ritual of pederasty" indicates that it was a formalized feature of ancient Greek social life. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Ancient Greek Arts

To make the article more clearly grounded in extant sources does anyone know the treatment of homosexuality in ancient Greek comedy, oratory or philosophy? Ember 2199 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The sources listed on the article are not credible. One source is a book review. A book review is not a source. ~~Cretanpride

Of course it is, if published by a credible source. We're not talking about your misrepresentation of Thornton's Eros. Bustter 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are few topics as well documented as homosexual practices in ancient Greece, and in ancient Crete, for that matter. Please address specifics of the article if you find them wanting. Haiduc 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I personaly feel the article should just be deleted. If Ancient Greeks were gay then what's next? George Bush, Winston Churchill, Christ. I am Greek and I have read Greek literature and there is nothing homosexual in it. You guys twist it in such a way to make it seem like there is. For example, the Illiad has absolutely nothing to do with same sex love but you guys say it does. You guys are probably gay and just want to show that being gay is okay and this is the wrong way to do it. ~~Cretanpride

I do not think that ancient Greeks were gay. That being said, neither do I think they were heterosexual. The title of this article is simply a handle, perhaps a slightly misleading one, to discuss practices that do not lend themselves to ready description in 20th century vocabulary. As for the Iliad, please go to Iliad for a discussion of what the ancient Greeks thought of it. Haiduc 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Making random accusations against the editors of an article isn't the same as finding sources and making arguments (see ad hominem and Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Nonetheless, if you want you can nominate the article for deletion at WP:VFD. -Smahoney 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, the book review that you (I think) tried to add is for a vanity-published book and is filled with hateful invective ("putrescent pap", "dissembling dimwits", "invidious absurdities", "boob-tube-mesmerized consumer-drones", etc. etc.) that has no place in scholarship. I will be glad to remove it if you or anyone reinserts it. Gazpacho 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How could you know all that if you have never read the book?--66.53.98.122 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about the content of the book? Self-published sources are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. Gazpacho 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)