Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title: objection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion for merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neddyseagoon modifications 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Iliad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order 

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Homosexuality in Ancient Greek Arts