Talk:Spartan pederasty

message: There is this text:
"Krimon fucked Amotion here"
Is this the literal translation? It appears like whoever added it purposely used what is commonly an offensive word. Are there not others that are equally valid?
~jptdrake
*Oiphe is commonly rendered as "fuck" though some have rendered it as "have sex with". The important point is that it is no circumlocution but direct speech, and the offensive aspect is in the modern mind but not in that of the writer. I do think that "fuck" is a more honest translation. Haiduc 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one debates the existence of Spartan pederasty. What is debated is whether the relationship was sexually expressed or not. As for its being erotic, that is the nature of the pederastic relationship, whether or not the desires are fulfilled. Haiduc 03:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The author seems to have changed the word "Greek" with "Spartan."  I have thumbed through many of the books described in the sources, and none of them specifically refer to Spartan pederasty.  Whowever wrote this article has a bias or agenda.  Having thumbed through those historical works myself, much of this is falsehood.  In fact, there is a little tidbit I read somewhere about how Spartans made fun of other Greeks for their homosexual affairs stating that "their members are not big enough for real women, so they have go with young boys."  I think I read it in a historic text talking about Spartan machismo or something.
And speaking of Machismo, turns out that whole notion of exagerated manliness originated in ancient Greece.  The "machismo" culture of latin america in fact has its roots in ancient Greece.  From Greece, it spread to Rome, and from Rome, to Spain, and from Spain of course, to what is now Latin America.  As a matter of fact, Greek and Latin American culture are so close, Greek immigrants to Latin America have no trouble adapting, while Latin American immigrants to Greece also have little trouble.  Ancient Greece was the craddle of mediterranean culture, at least, on the European side.  Also, for all intents and purposes, Latin America is a mediterranean land and culture.
If the modern med culture is any indication, then, by all logic Spartan machismo must have gone to ridiculous levels.  Far more ridiculous even, than in the movie "The 300."  They say truth is stranger than fiction; maybe the real Sparans were, highly likely, comically macho.  Of course, this last paragraph is an assertion; I would suggest one actually take the time to look at the sources presented here.  The Spartans, by and large, except when it came to war, were treated as a footnote by ancient Greek historians so the truth is no one knows for sure what their practices were like.  Again though, if modern mediterranean culture is any indication at all, and since Greece is the origin of the med's macho culture, then, highly likely the Spartans were ultra-macho individuals who probably would have had little (if any) tolerance for homesexual behavior, or effeminate men.
Machismo doesn't just exist in Latin America; you see it in Spain, in southern France, in Italy, in Greece, in Turkey, in Lebanon, and in Israel.  Please do not forget; culturally, Greece dominated the mediterranean world.  Mediterranean men (Israelis included) are macho, because of the ancient Greeks.  I believe some of their philosophers even wrote on making clear distinctions between men and women, can't remember who though.  It was from here, no doubt, that the whole "macho" culture originated.
Oh well like it matters; please check the sources to anyone reading this page.  
206.63.78.97 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check The Sources at Your Local University Library 

message: This entire article is an eyesore.
There is no contemporary source claiming the Spartans routinely practiced homosexuality, including physical pederasty. The only time it's ever implied was by Athenian playwrights, jokingly. The Athenians were at war with the Spartans at the time, so it's clear that they were simply insulting them as if to call a straight man "gay" today.
With such bold claims, this page should definitely list the translations used. Xenophon is a particularly good reference on this subject, as despite the fact he was homophobic he still allowed his son to be educated in Sparta. Along with some of his other quotes (specifically II. 13. of "Lakedemonian Constitution"), as well as sources from later writers like Plutarch ("Ancient Customs of the Spartans" 7. 237 - c. and XVII 4 of his Lykurgos biography; which also applies to the rubbish and frankly modern "lovers fight better togeter" theory), Maximus of Tyre ("Declamations" 20.e)  and Cladius Aelianus ("Various History" III, 12), we read that the Spartans not only did not practice sexual pederasty, they actually despised it and it was outlawed.
The gymnasium at Thera does not apply to the mainland Lakedaimonians, as it is already known that many Dorians in the Cyclades practiced homosexual relations much more freely than on the Greek peninsula were it was typically frowned upon in most poleis. Despite this, the article still needs more evidence in this department, as William Armstrong Percy III is a homosexual author and though this may sound like a generalization, homosexual historians have been known to revise ancient Greek history since at least the 1870s. Percy also seems to be in support of legalizing sodomy. Just a note to whoever believes his words.
And for the record, the pottery shown in this page is ETRUSCAN, not Spartan, not even Greek at all! This article is so messed up, it should be cleared completely and restarted. In fact, pretty much all the articles about pederasty and homosexuality in ancient Greece are filled to the brim with bias. 
I hope this can start a change in this and other relevant Wiki articles. This is a prime example why Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to classical history.
:Xenophon homophobic?! Explain.
:Are you conflating "sexual pederasty" and anal relations? Read the Phaedrus (among many others) to be redeemed from that mistake.
:You presume that heterosexual authors are more reliable than homosexual ones? Explain.
:"Homosexual relations"? Kissing? Frottage? Fondling? What are you talking about? Be specific.
:Sodomy still needs to be legalized?! Explain.
:Attic pottery in Tarquinia is still Attic, just like a Japanese car in the UK is still a Japanese car. Haiduc 00:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Own?! Hardly. I contribute, and you can be very sure that many someones are looking over my shoulder. No one has carte blanche here. I would be very happy if you would contribute, but just as I try to keep my own opinions out of this, please try to keep yours out likewise, especially on the article pages. Bring in evidence, it can only improve the articles. Haiduc 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to apologize, I actually was honored by your assumption. It is not far off the mark, I am the one who kept on splitting articles from the original one, and expanding the discussion. I confess that between professional obligations and publishing deadlines I have not had the time to study your references, but I promise to do it after the beginning of September. If I might ask you for a favor, please pick one that you would most like to discuss, and we'll address it, and then others as you may see fit. Haiduc 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken another look at the Xenophon reference, as it is the first on your list. I see no conflict there, it mentions that in Lacaedemon erastes had to refrain from boys in the same way that parents did. If you read the article carefully you will note that this reference (see Note 13) has already been included in the article, in support of the contention that pederastic relationships were chaste. Please also note that even as he asserts that, Xenophon corroborates the existence of pederasty in Sparta by using the term "erastes." Thus, it was the Spartan erastes who were admonished to refrain from boys' bodies even as they befriended the boys' souls. Chaste pederasty is still pederasty as far as Xenophon is concerned, it seems. However, in re-reading the fragment it appears that the translation I used takes liberties with the text, and I will employ a different one, for the sake of accuracy. Haiduc 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous critique

message: I put that in there. Here is what I find totally confusing. The authors(s) are not careful to distinguish between pederasty as we know it, which is sexual and a crime, and pedagogy. He (she, they) use(s) pederast in an equivocal sense and you never know which is which. If the author is saying there is no difference, well, that is just plain wrong and turns all of Greek history into "queer history." Moreover I believe it borders on being illegal (but I'm not a lawyer). Can you legally "sell" pederasty? And then there is the matter of pinning the whole thing on the Dorians, which is totally false. In those days before public schooling the young WERE given into the care of appropriate older persons for guidance and instruction and that is not just true of the Dorians. And as for attributing the introduction of all this to the Dorian invasion, why, that is just totally off the wall. No scholar I ever heard of advocated a "queer invasion." The thing is, I or anyone else cannot evaluate the validity of the sources or the historic truth of what is being said without knowing what is meant by the terms! What I am saying is, "put up or shut up." Define what you mean and provide line-item sources. We already know there was homosexuality among the ancient Greeks. YOU make it sound as though the whole population was queer and regularly indulged in homosexuality. And that first statement that pederasty is the result of overpopulation - just what in the HECK does THAT mean? I am not even going to ask. Instead I am asking YOU to clarify it. You put the article in there, now make yourself clear and stand the consequences. We have to take responsibility for what we say in public, you included. And by the way "queer studies" is not my term but I got it from a Wikipedia box. That is what the editors on the subject have chosen to call it, for better or for worse.Dave (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing template

message: I took a look at Scanlon. I would say he is pretty biased, interested in developing homosexuality as a major theme of ancient Greek life. Concerning the Greeks, he wants us to adopt the Greek wedding song "I'm standing behind you on your wedding day..." I don't think that is an accurate characterization. He seems to have ferreted out every bit of scandal and gossip he can find and presents that as fact. I do not see any numbers here at all or studies of interviews such as the Kinsey or any other report. There are no statistics and no science whatever. As far as anecdotes are concerned, for every homosexual anecdote he can find anyone can find several heterosexual anecdotes. The value of gossip and anecdotes as evidence is not very great. However, what I am putting the tag on for is the generalizations - did the Spartans originate athletic nudity? No evidence is given. I doubt it. He does talk about nudity at Olympia, but that is not Sparta. And then he couples it with generalizations about growing eroticism, etc. Well OK like other scholars he throws his hat into the generalization ring. It isn't general opinion, it isn't backed up by solid scholarship, it isn't scientific, it isn't BALANCED. Well, I'm not saying, in an article of this sort you must run out and find three heterosexual work-ups to counter Scanlon's development. But to present Scanlon's personal view as fact is an unbalanced approach. I want to see some identification of these opinionated (in my mind unduly) but published views as those of Thomas Scanlon and not as general truth about antiquity. Some of his scholarship is good, no doubt, but for the rest he goes off the deep end of supposition, speculation, unverified claims, slanting and general inaccuracy and wrongness of interpretation. He gives the appearance of having an axe to grind beyond his chosen topic. Classics should not be platform for homosexuality.Dave (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopsided template

message: It seems fairly clear from the variety and contradictions of the sources that the institution of older boys or men mentoring younger was intended to be merely educational, was often romantic and probably frequently sexual and opinions about the desirability of the last were highly divided to say the least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.218.117 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Deal In Absolutes 

message: The Xenophon reference, as mentioned above and in the article, states clearly that pederasty was "banned as an abomination". The article needs, therefore, to be completely rewritten in order to avoid giving the impression that Spartans were known to be pederasts. Please do not remove the tag until this problem has been dealt with.Zombie president (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific. What passage in what work are you referring to? Haiduc (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote no.9 in the articleZombie president (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Spartan lovers were held by many to have been chaste, but that does not mean they were not lovers. See Percy, p.7. Haiduc (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article should be deleted as it represents the wishfull thinking of the author. It has references but they do not support his thesis.Popytrewq (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  to delete 

message: Most of the references cited in this article are primary sources. This indicates original research. The article should reference mostly or only secondary sources. — goethean ॐ 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research