Greek Homosexuality
 

NOTE: Originally written 3rd of January, 2006. I wrote it on my blog. Thanks.

I was interested in reading about the famed period of Greek homosexuality, a period which a lot of people try to use to justify the homosexuality as a normal and commonplace act, one that is merely suppressed by society. I wanted to see if I could find: How prevalent it was, what the homosexual culture of the time was like, who is doing it, who is getting done in it, how did women ever fit into the picture, etc.

In my effort to answer these questions, I would like to provide some answers for us all for our continued discussion on homosexuality by discussing a history of it.

How prevalent was homosexuality in ancient Greece?

One source notes, "Of course homosexuality existed in Greece, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death."

The same source notes that Greek law at the time detailed that a homosexual must not "become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death (Aeschines. "Contra Timarchus," as cited in Georgiades, p. 69). "

Wikipedia also notes that "Love between adult men was known, and though it was discouraged and ridiculed there are records of many such couples. The third, and best known category was love between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty."

So even in the sense of the Spartans and their boys, it was an issue of pederasty and considered distinctly different from adult homosexuality which was strongly discouraged and ridiculed, as even objective sources do note.

Who was doing it in ancient Greece?

We do know that http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/ancientgreece.html"When homosexual men wrote about their love for other men the most loved boys were usually age 12-14. Some homosexual men wouldn't even try to have sex with a boy over the age of 17."[/quote]

To me this sounds like an idealization of youth, and sort of that in the minds of others men became dirty after a certain age and were not fit for sexual interaction. It goes into the notion of Pederasty again, and further separates the concept and delineates that the concept of grown men engaging in a homosexual relationship was unheard of.

Why were Greeks often homosexual?

Some places suggest that "the Greeks hated and victimized their women" and thus were inclined to practice homosexuality out of the notion that women were not fit for love.

Pederasty, as wikipedia notes, "In antiquity, pederasty as a moral and educational institution was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome."

In many senses, we can understand the concept of Greek homosexuality as being primarily of a pederastic nature, and thus as more of an institution of an older man taking a younger man as an apprentice. This coupled with a general disdain of women as being only for family and being less intelligent than men, would probably make the men interested in intimate, intellectual relationships that would result in a homosexual act.

Conclusion: Homosexuality in ancient Greece is incredibly abused and misused in trying to justify the normality of homosexual relationships amongst men, and that there is absolutely no evidence to conclude that homosexual is simply a natural phenomenon that society represses, but rather that even in ancient Greece it was still a ridiculed concept if two older men acted as homosexuals.

Since you seem to be unable to actually say anything of real value, I will sum up your post for the common reader to make it easier for them.

Bullshit.

There, hope that helps! :)

Absolutely amazing debating skills.

I've never been do disarmed by an argument before.

Look: More liberals who cannot debate, and simply react with their stomachs to articles they disagree with.

It would be nice to see argumentation, but I do not get it -- mere bullshit commentary from bullshittists.

It is proof that we'll triumph again.

SPQR.

Maybe if your entire argument were worth debate, I would debate. Just ask anyone in these forums, I love a good debate. However, you have not put forth anything that I am not already tired of arguing time and time again. You haven't presented any new ideas, just the same old crap that every bigot puts forth every time they want to talk about the "EVAL HOMOS!".

Maybe if you put forth an interesting topic dealing with actual facts, not biased incredible sources spouting bigoted opinions, I would be more willing to debate you. As it stands, you are becoming less and less engaging. Work on it.

Wikipedia isn't bias, and I would challenge you to find a non-bias source that contradicts what these sources say.

You put no effort forth to express yourself -- you talk about claiming things are bias, but I do not even think you can provide an alternative to what you call as 'bias.'

You are't going to ever win an argument unless you get truth on your side, and so for the sake of this discussion, I would recommend that you switch sides.

Join the Legion.

anyone using "they did it over 2000 years ago it must be ok" to justify anything is a very ridiculous person. Times change, people.

and lol @ "wikipedia isn't bias", of course nothing that ANYONE CAN EDIT could possibly be biased :lol

Oh my sweet jumping Jesus.

"I was interested in reading about the famed period of Greek homosexuality, a period which a lot of people try to use to justify the homosexuality as a normal and commonplace act, one that is merely suppressed by society."

This sentence is the product of a disordered mind. I'm not talking about it's content. It is so poorly written it prevents concideration of the content. If you can't put your thoughts into writing better than this, you are totally unready for any sort of debate. You are barely ready for conversation. You seem offended no one is taking you seriously. Why on earth would they?

It's not that I don't get what you're driving at. I do, but there's no reason to dignify the manner in which you present it with an answer. Your like a kid who after a year of violin instruction inists on playing Mozart and then gets huffy when no one wants to critique their performance.

Slow down. Stop over reaching. Try writing a cogent sentence with a subject and object. Than I'd be happy to get into why I think your actual ideas are stupid.

Lets look at your opening sentence . Three clauses. Until you can write single clause sentence that clearly expresses your meaning, skip orante construction. "I was interested in reading about the famed period of Greek homosexuality" First of all, this isn't your premiss. Lead with your premiss. Try to figure out what your premiss is. Then state it. There is no 'famed Period of Greek Homosexuality' One assumes that one degree or another of homosexuality has always been practiced in Greece. The 'time period' I imagine you are referencing is best known for philosiphy, theories of government, cultural achievments, architecture, etc. The acceptance of various social practices was a single aspect of that society.
Would you refer to to the American Civil War as 'The Famed Period of American Facial hair' and expect people would know what you were tlking about?

'a period which a lot of people try to use to justify the homosexuality as a normal and commonplace act,'

You used the word 'period' twice in the space of six words. Redundancy is clutter. So is redundancy. See?

You do not 'try to use to justify'. A justification may be incorrect or unsupported, but you make one or you don't.

There is no such thing as 'the homosexuality'. It's just 'homsexuality'. Perhaps you are thinking of 'the Batman'.

In the context you are using them, the words Normal and Commonplace are no different. If you mean there to be a distinction, and if that distinction is in any way important to your premise, make it clear. Otherwise, use one word. Also, 'homosexuality' is not an 'act'. would you describe Judaism, Red hair or membership in the Liberatraian party as 'a normal and commonplace act'?

'one that is merely suppressed by society.' Who's society? Greeks of the famed period of homosexuality? Can't be, your premiss is people think it was 'normal and commonplace'. Do you mean our society? Many modern societies? Which time period are you talking about?

If you actually want discussion and aren't just looking to validate your opininion of yourself as a bold straight shooter by having people mock you (Hello? I-Mockery? As in the name of this site?), pull your self together. (That's how you write multiple clause sentence). Before you spew some brine through your blowhole about how this is just a message board, try to keep in mind you're the one whining about not being taken seriously.

so, is this guy gay and trying to justify it to himself, or did I miss something?

Yeah I want to know if this guy is gay...

"The conclusions drawn are that while the Greeks regarded homosexuality in general to be natural, normal and salutary, their actual practices were circumscribed by cultural norms."

From wikipedia.

The aeschines "Quote" he delivered has absolutely no sources online.

The results

I'm not saying it's untrue, but what the fuck? All the sources are gay haters it would seem, kind of impartial. Where's the actual text? I checked wikipedia, i checked on a few philosophy sites that usually have everything... nothing.

The place he likely copy and pasted the bulk of his argument from

More quotes from wikipedia:
"Dover extensively quotes from the records of the trial to demonstrate, among other things, that while the Athenians attached no stigma to homosexuality, per se, they did adhere to certain conventions; in this case, that no citizen could be permitted to sell his sexual favors, which they regarded as the proper function of a slave, not a free man."

So impartial.

The one thing we can gather from his article is that he supports pedophilia.

I like how you call anyone who disagrees with you a "liberal".

It, along with the bulk of your second post in this thread, indicate that you are disinclined toward independent thought. I think you should NEVER retire from the military, though you should NEVER be made an officer of any significant rank (that would be counterproductive). You are the perfect cog - THANK YOU for fulfilling that vital role for our national security. But FUCK YOU for spewing your worthless echoes of what you profess to be your own thoughts across the internet.

:chatter I hope no one criticizes my grammar online.

So you could not find the sources? The wikipedia source made the most hard-hitting conclusions, and generally wikipedia tends to be accurate (or at least strive for as much).

The rest was non-argument.


I guess I write poorly, but it does not matter. My arguments are right. And you are a cunt.

Furthermore, I am going to get out of the Army. I want to get tattoos on my face and hands, and the only way is to leave the military. Plus, I want to actively fight against the Left Wing. I consider them a greater threat to our society than cunts running around the sand dunes.

I would like to try to become a Professor and publish studies against the Left wing, because they are the only target that concerns me.

We are fighting a cultural war, up to this point we have gained no ground, but we are going to regain what we lost and we will destroy our enemy.

Historically, it is inevitable that the liberalism will return as a disease to haunt the mighty civilization -- it is a fact of Spengler's theories concerning the cycles of history that was further elaborated on by Durant.

But we could turn it around here, and even if we cannot turn it around, I am still going to fight you forever because I hate everything that you stand for.

Now that's comedy. Here's the thing about professors:

1. They are expected to write reasonably well.
2. They are expected to use sources that are impartial and, well, accurate.
3. Academia generally considers it gauche to dismiss dissenting opinions as being nothing more than the work of "liberals".


Honestly, if I were you, I would give up on becoming a professor and just stick with becoming a pundit. You already have all that you need to be one: an irrational, comical hatred of the other side, and a plethora of heavily-biased studies and statistics. Now all you need is a TV camera. Call Fox News. They'll put anyone on the air.

:lol

Yeah, caring for people sucks. My Mama told me to 'treat others as I wished to be treated', but that's obviously bullshit, otherwise people must love me calling them cunts! :eek

Kultur, what's it like to live in a world where you're scared of everybody who doesn't agree with you?

IT'S BAD TO BE GAY! THAT'S WHY I INSERTED THIS DILDO UP MY ASS THREE TIMES LAST NIGHT!

IT'S NOT GAY IF I DO IT MYSELF. :tear

Nice character Helm

! was thinking more of Legion or mad max

That was very terrific -- I laughed and saved it to my screen saver of rotating pictures. :)

It would be neat to see an actual penis in my hands -- could you make it look like I just got done smoking a cock?

oi! oi! oi! OI!

Stay in the Army, Shecky. It's the only place where you have a future. Failing that, I'm sure the Aryan Nation will welcome you with open arms.

"I guess I write poorly, but it does not matter. My arguments are right."

I doesn't matter if you plan on starting a religion and expect people to have faith in your arguments. Otherwise, as long as you write the way you do no one is going to have a clear idea what your arguments even are, let alone if they agree.

Here's a free tip. When looking for your next job, 'Professor' or otherwise, they'll ask you in the interview why you decided to leave the army. DO NOT SAY because you wanted to get tattoos on your face and hands. That's not the kind of decision making most people are going to want in a job applicant. Unless, you know, you plan on fighting the left wing while working a Frosty Machine.

n closing, I hope you aren't a character. You're starting to grow on me.

Can we start a thread where we deposit quotes from this guy like the Vince thread oh pleasepleaseplease