Homosexuality in Ancient Greece Section 1

Wednesday 4 November 2015.
 

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece Section One

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece will be comprised of three sections. They will deal with Greek sexuality in general, adult homosexual activity, pederasty and compares our modern western society to that of ancient Greece. The third section deals with Greek Philosophers and Greek laws pertaining to homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Section two will deal with Greek pederasty, which was mostly limited to the male members of the upper class in Ancient Greece. This first section discusses Ancient Greece sexuality in general, homosexuality in Ancient Greece and the “kinaidos” who was an adult male that took the passive role in homosexual behavior.

What, then, can we conclude about homosexuality in the modern American culture if one only listens to those on the political left, from those on the political right, or from the various court cases? One may find a fourth view when the issue of homosexuality is on a ballot up for vote. Two contradictory outcomes have been the result depending on whether the question has been an issue of discrimination or the definition of marriage. In an overwhelming majority of times when the vote has been to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples the results have been not to change the historical definition of marriage of one man and one woman. There have been more favorable outcomes when the question is discrimination against homosexuals. So then our modern American culture view of homosexuality is very similar to that of ancient Greece as seen in the following quotes by historians David Cohen and Bruce Thornton.

“What, then, is one to conclude about a culture whose laws expressed a deep-rooted anxiety about pederasty while not altogether forbidding it? A culture in which attitudes and values ranged from the differing modes of approbation represented in Plato’s Symposium to the stark realism of Aristophanes and the judgment of Aristotle that homosexuality is a diseased or morbid state acquired by habit and comparable to biting fingernails or habitually eating earth or ashes? A culture is not a homogeneous unity; there was no one "Athenian attitude" towards homoeroticism. The widely differing attitudes and conflicting norms and practices which have been discussed above represent the disagreements, contradictions and anxieties which make up the patterned chaos of a complex culture. They should not be rationalized away. To make them over into a neatly coherent and internally consistent system would only serve to diminish our understanding of the "many-hued" nature of Athenian homosexuality.” (Cohen, Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens, p. 21)

“What, then, is one to conclude about a culture whose laws expressed a deep rooted anxiety about pederasty while not altogether forbidding it. A culture in which attitudes and values range from the differing modes of approbation represented in Plato’s Symposium to the stark realism of Aristophanes and the judgment of Aristotle, that in a man, the capacity to feel pleasure in a passive sexual role is a diseased or morbid state, acquired by habit, and comparable to biting fingernails or habitually eating earth or ashes. A culture is not a homogeneous unity; there was no one “Athenian attitude” towards homoeroticism. The widely differing attitudes and conflicting norms and practices which have been discussed above represent the disagreements, contradictions, and anxieties which make up the patterned chaos of a complex culture. They should not be rationalized away. To make them over into a nearly coherent and internally consistent system would only serve to diminish our understanding of the “many-hued” nature of Athenian homosexuality.” (Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens, p. 201-202).

“First, most of the writing on ancient sexuality these days grinds the evidence in the mill of an “advocacy agenda” supported by some fashionable theory that says more about the crisis of Western rationalism than it does about ancient Greece. Thus we are told that the Greeks saw nothing inherently wrong with sodomy between males as long as certain “protocols” of age, social status, and position were honored, an interpretation maintained despite the abundance of evidence, detailed below in Chapter 4, that the Greeks-including pederastic apologists like Plato-were horrified and disgusted by the idea of male being anal ling penetrated by another male and called such behavior “against nature.” One purpose here is to get back to what the Greeks actually say without burying it in polysyllabic sludge.” (Thornton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. xiii)

“There can be no doubt that the development of homosexuality was connected with the rise of the gymnnasis and arenas in which boys practised the five exercises of the pentathlon, which comprised wrestling, the foot-race, leaping, throwing the discus and hurling the javelin. Others were boxing and the pancration, a mixture of fist-fighting and wrestling. The competitors were always naked and watched by admiring spectators.” (Flacelliere, Love in Ancient Greece, p.65)

“One thing is certain: homosexuality was associated in the Greek mind with the separation of the sexes, military ethos, male nudity, physical culture, and gymnasis. The education of boys consisted of physical training as much as scholarship and the arts, and it took place in the gmnasia. The word comes from gymnos, which means naked. Boys spend a great part of the day racing and wrestling there, naked or lightly clad.” (Karlen, Sexuality and Homosexuality A New View, p.31-32)

“Once one looks beyond the literary apologists for homosexuality in ancient Greece, one finds a widespread attitude of mockery and disgust. Homosexual behavior was probably often practice with shame, false bravado or secrecy.” (Karlen, Sexuality and Homosexuality A New View, p.35)

“The point of all of this is not to prove that homosexuality is vicious or pernicious, but that in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered a deviation; it was given positive value only by a minority of homosexuals, bisexuals and apologists. Neither did its presence in Greece have any relationship to social, artistic or political health. The fact that homosexuality was a factor in the lives of great men only speaks for its prevalence among the leisured, literate elite from which artists and statesmen came. A permissive or positive view of homosexuality must find other grounds than the myth that made everything Greek praiseworthy.” (Karlen, Sexuality and Homosexuality A New View, p. 38)

“If ancient Greeks and Romans were concerned with the social and political implications of their sex acts, modern westerners have become obsessed with desire’s object. The West has been largely preoccupied with whom people had sex, ancients with the question of excess or over-indulgence, activity and passivity.” (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 17)

Sex was viewed as directional, and having two roles active and passive

While this article is written to discuss the homosexuality, specifically Greek pederasty, a discussion of how the Greek’s saw sexuality must be understood. In our modern understanding of sexuality, except in cases of abuse such as rape, the partners are equals. But this was not the case in ancient Greece. First there was a fundamental inequity in favor of the free male in relationship to boys, women and slaves. Secondly this resulted in sex having a directional quality, with an anatomic imperative, again in favor of the free male. Sex was something he did to someone else and what he used to do it with, his male sex organ, the penis. Thirdly, sex had active/passive roles, one partner was the penetrator and the second partner was penetrated. Thus the ancient Greeks may be seen as having a greater acceptance for bisexuality.

“For the ancients, many historians agree, sexuality was not a separate realm of experience, the core of private life; instead it was directly linked to social power and status. People were judged by public behavior, for which there were clear roles; marriage, for instance, was a duty that bore no necessary relationship to erotic satisfaction. Socially powerful males (citizens) enjoyed sexual access to almost all other members of the society (including, in Greece, enslaved males, younger free males, foreigners, and women of all classes).” (Clausen, Beyond Gay or Straight, p. 51)

“First, the expression of sexuality was centered on a fundamental inequity, not only in male-female relationships, but also between male partners in a homosexual relationship.” (King, “Sowing the Field: Greek and Roman Sexology, p. 29 in Sexual Knowledge Sexual Science: The History of the Attitudes in Sexuality editors Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich)

“ In Greece the sexual relationship was assumed to be a power relationship, where one participant is dominate and the other inferior. On one side stands the free adult male; on the other, women, slaves, and boys. Sexual roles are isomorphic with social roles; indeed, sexual behavior is seen as a reflection of social relationship not as itself the dominant theme. Thus it is important for us to remember that for the Greeks it was one’s role, not one’s gender, that was salient. Sexual objects come in two different kinds – not male and female but active and passive.” (Downing, Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love, p.135-136)

“In the late twentieth century it became fashionable to assume that penile penetration expressed the power of the penetrator and subordination of the penetrated (Foucault 1976/80-1984/6; Keuls 1985; Parker 1992). Many studies then concluded, rightly I feel, that men had sexual access to all those beneath them in society (unmarried females, non-citizen males, slaves; Richlin 1992: xviii; Sutton 1992; 5); only proper women and citizen males were off limits.” (Younger, Sex in the Ancient World From A to Z, p. xiv)

“Although sexual pleasure and marriage were not necessarily linked, sexuality and domination most certainly were. Far from being a mutual experience, sexual activity always had a directional quality for the Greeks. Sex was something one “did” to someone, and anatomic imperative dictated that it was a man (or more precisely the penis) that did the doing.” (Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality, p. 7)

“In both Greece and Rome, as the most recent studies have correctly argued, the fundamental opposition between different types of sexual behaviour was not the heterosex/homosexual contrast, but the active/passive contrast, the former category – activity – being characteristic of the adult male, while the latter – passivity – was reserved for women and boys.” (Cantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, p. x)

“The ancient world, both Greek and Roman, did not base its classification on gender, but on a completely different axis, that of active versus passive. This has one immediate and important consequence, which we must face in the beginning. Simply put, there was no such emic, cultural abstraction as “homosexuality” in the ancient world. The fact that a man had sex with other men did not determine his sexual category. Equally, it must be emphasized, there was no such concept as “heterosexuality”. The application of these terms to the ancient world is anachronistic and can lead to serious misunderstandings. By the fifth time one has made the qualification, “The passive homosexual was not rejected for his homosexuality but for his passivity,” it ought to become clear that we are talking not about “homosexuality” but about passivity.” (Parker, The Teratogenic Grid, p.47-48 in Roman Sexualities editors Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner)

“As we remarked earlier, the Greeks showed a pronounced tendency to attach greatest importance to (indeed, to glorify) the sexual instinct itself rather than the particular object; consequently they were much freer than modern men to vary sexual objects on their relative merits. Greek culture, unlike modern cultures, imposed on adult males no limitations as to the choice of sexual objects per se, and the only “perversions” remarked by the comic poets (reflecting, we may be sure, community opinion) are cases in which sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse, otherwise perfectly acceptable, are pursed to excess (see Cratin. 152, for example) or practiced in an inappropriate setting.” (Henderson, The Maculate Muse, p.205)

“The third, closely related, feature is the importance of penetration; the main distinction in all sexual encounters, heter- or homosexual, was presented as being between penetrator and penetrated.” (King, “Sowing the Field: Greek and Roman Sexology” p.30 in Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of the Attitudes to Sexuality editors Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich p. 30)

“Scholarly debates endure on the question of whether Athenians and indeed other Greeks condoned most forms of consensual male-male sexual contact provided they respected broader social hierarchies including age, status and citizenship, or instead celebrated only chaste love between men and were more morally dubious about penetration. Despite ongoing controversy, it appears that in both the early modern Ottoman and ancient Athenian, contexts the active and passive in the sex act were conceived differently. Those prone to committing sodomy exhibited moral failure rather than sexual pathology in ways that will become familiar from the pages below.” (Phillips and Reay, Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 5)

“The Greeks associated sexual desire closely with other human appetites – the desire for food, drink, and sleep – and saw all these appetites as entailing the same moral problem, the problem of avoiding excess.” (Downing, Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love, p.134)

“The Greek sexual ethic emphasized not what one did but how one did it; it involved not an index of particular forbidden acts but an inculcation to act with moderation.” (Downing, Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love, p.135)

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

“The ancient Greek and Latin languages have no word that can be translated as homosexual, largely because these societies did not have the same sexual categories that we do. Our concepts and categories of sexual expression are based on the genders of the two partners involved: heterosexuality when the partners are of the opposite sex, and homosexuality when the partner are of the same sex. In other times and among other peoples, this way of thinking about people simply doesn’t seem to apply-anthropologists, historians, and sociologists have described many cultures in which same-sex eroticism occupies a very different place than it does in our own.” (Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality, p. 3-4)

“Ancient Greece is often cited as an example of a civilization in which homosexuality was accepted as normal, even encouraged. This is not quite true. All males were expected to make love to women, to marry, and to sire a family, whether or they had a male lover or not. Moreover, love and sex between adult males was thought to be a bit ridiculous. The norm was for an adult male to have a relationship that lasted several years with an adolescent boy. When the boy reached maturity, he, then, was also expected to take a young lover.” (Goode, Deviant Behavior, p.193-194)

“Homosexuality was a universally recognized sexual option throughout the ancient world, particularly in Dorian areas, where it seems to have had a religious, ethical, and legal sanction and to have been more a part of man’s everyday public life than was the case in Athens.” (Henderson, The Maculate Muse, p.204)

“The second feature is more applicable to classical Greece culture. Male homosexual activity was, to some extent, seen as normal, but only if it was kept within certain clearly defined social parameters. Relationships between equals in age were frown upon. In classical Athens, homosexual relationships ideally had some features of an initiation rite, between a young, beardless boy and an older mentor. However, even such relationships were hedged round with etiquette regarding the process of courtship and the giving and receiving of gifts and other signals, while a ‘deep-rooted anxiety’ about pederasty was expressed in classical Athenian law. Aristotle argues that any enjoyment of what he saw as the subordinate, defeated role of the passive partner in a homoerotic relationship was unnatural; on Athenian vase-paintings, the passive partner is never showed with an erection. The Athenian figure of the kinaidos, the man who actually enjoys the passive role, is presented as a ‘scare-figure’, both socially and sexually deviant.” (King, “Sowing the Field: Greek and Roman Sexology” p. 30 in Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of the Attitudes to Sexuality editors Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich)

“The model of classical Athenian homosexual culture that continues to be the most influential is firmly based on that put forward by Sir Kenneth Dover in his 1978 book, Greek Homosexuality The views he developed there reached an audience beyond that of classical scholarship when they were taken up (in somewhat misunderstood form) by Michel Foucault in his 1984 book, L’usage des plaisirs (translated in 1985 as The Use of Pleasure). The model might be summarized in the following terms. Male homosexual acts normally took place between an erastes (lover), a young man, ideally a bachelor, and an eromenos (beloved), a beardless, adolescent boy between the ages of twelve and eighteen. Both would belong to the elite. The erastes would court the eromenos with such things as hunting gifts and, if successful, consummate his desire through anal sex. As the boy turned to manhood in the period between the ages of eighteen and twenty—the transitional period of life associated with service as an ephebe (a border-guard)—he would himself cease to be a passive partner and pursue other boys in turn. Later on, by around the age of thirty, he would give up homosexual activity altogether in favor of marriage. The role of the erastes was one of dominance, the role of the eromenos one of subjection, and they participated in a zero-sum game of social advantage and disadvantage. As a result, the pursued boy was in a morally precarious situation, but he could retain his honor so long as he was extremely discriminating in his acceptance of a lover, took extravagant gifts for his favors but money on no account, and did not make any show of enjoying the anal sex. The lover would use his dominant position to give the boy valuable help, material or ethical, in becoming a full adult member of the community, as is reflected in Plato’s Symposium. So far as the Athenians were concerned, only an extremely deviant grown man would put himself in the role of the eromenos, and those who did, whether as prostitutes (as Timarchus was alleged to have been in a well-known speech of Aeschines) or as kinaidoi (men who simply enjoyed and sought to receive anal sex, were conceptualized as effeminate and reviled, and at Athens the former group was deprived of at least some citizen rights.” (Gilbert, Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History, p. 37-38 in A Cultural History of Sexuality Volume I In The Classical World editors Mark Golden, and Peter Toohey Editors)

“Both of these explanations of homosexuality-as either an “unnatural” perversion of sex or an excessive expression of its essential nature-can be found in ancient Greek literary remains. Choosing one of the two to the exclusion of the other, which is often the practice among modern scholars, oversimplifies the complexity of attitudes attested in the evidence.” Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.101)

“The ambiguity and complexity of Greek attitudes toward homosexuality can be seen first in the various speculations about its origins, which oscillate between the poles of culture and nature. Whatever its source, though, habitual, passive homosexuality is clearly considered an aberration, a disorder linked to violence and disease, even the supposedly accepted institution of pederasty.” (Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. 101-102)

“Whether the origins of homosexuality are to be found in nature or history, though, it clearly is problematic, even in its presumably accepted forms of pederasty, a phenomenon needing to be accounted for mythically in the crime of Laius.” (Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. 103)

“One of our difficulties when reading about ancient Greece is that the most common manifestation of homosexuality in the evidence concerns pederasty, the quasi-ritualized, transient, physical and emotional relationship between an older male and a youth, an activity we view as criminal. Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as “couples” involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships. Thus the evidence from ancient Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or more precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure. These two categories, as we will see, are not as mutually exclusive as they might appear, which accounts for the anxiety tingeing even the most enthusiastic ancient celebrators of pederasty.” (Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.100

“In the first place it appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery.” (Flacelliere, Love in Ancient Greece, p.62)

“In Athens, for a boy to have a homosexual relationship with an adult was considered not only acceptable, but also, under certain conditions, socially approved.” (Cantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, p. 17)

“By the time Athens entered period of her greatest power in 480 B.C., male homosexual practices were undoubtedly common and socially tolerated, but were they sanctioned? The age of pederastic innocence was over and a certain anxiety about the subject can be traced in art and literature. The misgivings expressed over male homosexuality usually concerned either homosexual prostitution or the possibility of homoerotic relations between peers.” (Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus Sexual Politics in Ancient Greece, p. 287)

“The above outline of the homosexual ethos in Athens shows that it underwent a fundamental change between the Archaic and the Classical ages. The archetypal homosexual relationship was that between a childlike or prepubescent boy and a mature man. The contact had strong paternal overtones, and it involved affectionate response from the child partner and mild sexual response from the pubescent partner. The original image of the ideal “beloved” did not include any feminine traits. In general, the sexual approach was frontal and the copulation intracrural.

The period when this pattern took shape was the Archaic age of Athens, before the greatest flowering of Attic culture. During the fifth and fourth centuries this patterned became compromised and led to male prostitution by citizens and to adult male love affairs; both of these practices were consistently stigmatized as socially unacceptable. Anal sex, generally associated with obscenity and coarse behavior, were the common form these discredited types of homosexual contact.” (Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus Sexual Politics in Ancient Greece, p.298-299)

“This was especially so if the youth allowed himself to be penetrated, an act considered unworthy of a man and a free citizen, and one which could threaten his citizenship.” (Bishop and Osthelder, Sexualia From Prehistory to Cyberspace, p.208)

“The situation was totally different in the case of grown equals, however. Whereas the Dorian boy would attain manhood through his submission, the grown man who submitted to another man would lose his manliness and become effeminate, exposed to shame and scorn.” (Vanggard, Phallos A Symbol and Its History in the Male World, p. 89)

“Regardless of actual behavior patterns, anal copulation between two males was equated with sex between two adults, not between a mature man and a young boy, and it was obviously not approved” (Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus Sexual Politics in Ancient Greece, p. 291)

“Homosexuality, then, to the Greeks is a historical innovation, a result of the depraved human imagination and vulnerability to pleasure.” (Thornton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.102)

“Already in 1964 Dover sounded the themes of his later publications: the centrality of Athenian law-court speeches; due attention to painted pottery; distinctions of genre, context, class, between beliefs and behaviors; the tendentious use of terms of personal abuse (such as “prostitute”) in political propaganda; and above all, the contrast between the older, active erastes and his passive junior partner in a homosexual pair, the eromenos. These Dover saw as essentially two stages in the social development of a Greek citizen rather than as life-long identities.” (Golden and Toohey, editors, Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, p. 6-7)

“Occasional exceptions need not undermine completely the general integrity of the model. But a more serious challenge to it has been mounted by James Davidson in an article first published in 2001. Davidson endorses from the Doverian-Foucauldian consensus the notion that a loss of honor on the part of an eromenos or, for that matter, on the part of anyone engaged in homosexual activities could ensue from a perceived failure of self-mastery (enkrateia, sophrosyne) in initially yielding to a relationship or in the conduct of it thereafter. A boy or man could demonstrate such a failure of self-mastery by yielding too readily or too eagerly, by yielding to many lovers at once or at random, or, most damagingly, by accepting money to yield—in other words, by becoming a prostitute. But Davidson decries what he sees as the fallacy of the "polarity of penetration" upon which the Dover-Foucault model otherwise depends. The notion that the anal penetrator was a "winner" and the anally penetrated was, to an equal and complementary degree, a "loser" in a zero-sum game of social advantage and disadvantage is to Davidson anachronistic and without warrant in the evidence for classical Athens. And, he maintains, there is insufficient evidence for the contention that the normal mode of sex between erastes and eromenos was the anal penetration of the latter by the former.” (Gilbert, Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History, p.39 in A Cultural History of Sexuality Volume I In The Classical World editors Mark Golden, and Peter Toohey Editors)

Kinaidos

In ancient Greece there is one particular adult male who is identified with homosexual behavior. The Greeks had a name for this individual, “kinaidos’. This individual was the one who took the passive receptive role in the male homosexual behavior of anal intercourse.

In doing so by being willing to take the passive, submissive role he was seen as unworthy to be a free man, and more like a male prostitute. As a result forfeited his right as a citizen to hold office. The man who would allow himself to be anally penetrated it was thought would also subject himself to the abuse of alcohol, eating, money, or power.

“An adult male was not supposed to take the receptive role. According to Plutarch, “Those who enjoy playing the passive role we treat as the lowest of the low, and we have not the slightest degree of respect for them.” The passive role was the role played by a woman, a youth, or a slave; it was shameful for an adult man-though not for a youth or a slave. A youth’s subordination to an older man was “natural” and temporary, and a slave by definition subordinate to his master.” (Greenberg,Transformations of Homosexuality-Based Classifications, p. 181 in The Gender/Sexuality Reader Culture, History, Politico Economy, editors Roger N. Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo.)

“Of those who surrendered to desires, none provoked more extreme outrage than the class of sexual degenerates known variously as katapugons or kinaidoi, the latter term apparently succeeding to the semantic field of the former some time around the beginning of the fourth century.” (Davidson, Courtesans & Fishcakes The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, p. 167)

“Another male image, the kinaidos, was totally negative. This was the man who was represented as acting in an effeminate fashion, by implication taking the passive role in sex because he could not control his appetites. The male prostitute or kinaidos was very different from our modern notion of the homosexual. The male prostitute was not expelled from society because, like the female prostitute, he provided a sexual service, albeit a shameful one. A man was not seen as born a kinaidos or male prostitute-it was a role he acquired.” (Clark, Desire A History of European Sexuality, p. 22)

“What we find is the kinaidos as emblem of unrestrained compulsive sexual appetite, of surrender to the chaos of natural passion that threatens civilized order, a traitor to his sex, a particularity offensive manifestation of eros’s power over the masculine mind that is responsible for creating and maintaining that order in the face of nature’s chaos.” Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.101)

“But in nearly every genre of Greek literature the kinaidos’s appetite is sterile, useless, good only for pleasure, rendering the male prone to other appetites, for money or power, that also threaten culture and its discriminating categories, particularly if he is a citizen responsible in some measure for the political functioning of the city.” (Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.101)

“The situation was totally different in the case of grown equals, however. Whereas the Dorian boy would attain manhood through his submission, the grown man who submitted to another man would lose his manliness and become effeminate, exposed to shame and scorn.” (Vanggard, Phallos A Symbol and Its History in the Male World, p. 89)

“Once we have accepted the universality of homosexual relations in Greek society as a fact, it surprises us to learn that if a man had at any time in his life prostituted himself to another man for money he was debarred from exercising his political rights.” (Dover, Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior, p.122-123 in Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, editors Mark Golden and Peter Toohey.)

“In so far as the “passive partner” in a homosexual act takes upon himself the role of a woman, he was open to the suspicion, like the male prostitute, that he abjured his prescribed role as a future solider and defender of the community.” (Dover, Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior, p.125 in Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, editors Mark Golden and Peter Toohey.

“As a rule, the only sexual practice attacked as a demeaning perversity is passive anal sex by menž the “wide-asses” (euryproktoi) who willingly submit to another man’s assertiveness. In this society, any form of submissiveness was considered unworthy of a free man. While all understood that a woman is naturally to be penetrated by a man, it was considered only for a slave or male prostitute to submit in this way to another male.” (Garrison, Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece, p.161)

“A man who enjoys playing the receptive partner is derogated as a prostitute and as having forfeited his right as a citizen to hold office. The assumption is that a man who would willingly make himself available would do anything! Only slaves, women, and foreigners would willingly choose to be treated as objects” (Downing, Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love, p. 139)

“Whether created by history or nature, childhood sexual abuse or deformed seminal ducts, the man who enjoys anal penetration by another man is an aberration, a volatile locus of potential social disorder that like the woman he resemble must be dealt with.” (Thorton, Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p.105)

“The protocols explain why. Since sexual activity is symbolic of (or constructed as) zero-sum competition and the restless conjunction of win, the kinaidos is a man who desires to lose. Contrary to all social junctions prescribing the necessity of men to exercise their desires in a way that shows mastery over self and others, the kinaidos simply and directly desires to be mastered.” (Winkler, “Laying Now the Law: The Oversight of Men’s Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens”. p. 186 in Before Sexuality The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World editors David M. Halperin, John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin)

Bibliography

Adams, PhD Barry, D. “Age, Structure, and Sexuality: Reflections on the Anthropological Evidence on Homosexual Relations”, p. 19- 33in The Many faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological Approaches to Homosexual Behavior editor Evelyn Blackwood.

Blackwood, Evelyn, editor. The Many faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological Approaches to Homosexual Behavior. Harrington Park Press. New York and London, 1986.

Bremmer, Jan. “Greek pederasty and modern homosexuality”, p. 1-14, in From Sappho to De Sade, edited by Jan Bremmer.

Cantarella, Eva. Translated by CormacO Cuilleanain. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Yale University Press. New Haven & London, 1992.

Clark, Anna. Desire A History of European Sexuality. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. New York and London, 2008.

Cohen, David. “Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens”. p.151-166 in Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, editors Mark Golden and Peter Toohey.

Cohen, David. Law, Sexuality, and Society The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England, 1991.

Copley, Antony. Sexual Moralities in France 1780-1980. Routledge. London and New York, 1989.

Davidson, James N. Courtesans & Fishcakes The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens. St. Martin’s Press. New York, 1998.

Detel, Wolfgang. Translated by David Wigg-Wolf. Foucault and Classical Antiquity Power, Ethics and Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Dover, K. J. “Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior”, p. 114-125 in Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, editors Mark Golden and Peter Toohey.

Downing, Christine. Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love. Continuum Publishing Company. New York, 1989.

Finnis, John. “Law, Morality, and “Sexual Orientation””, p.31- 42 in Same Sex Debating the Ethics, Science and Culture of Homosexuality, editor John Corvino.

Flacelliere, Love in Ancient Greece. Greenwood Press Publishers. Westport, Connecticut, 1973.

Gilbert, PhD, Arthur N. “Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History”, p.57-68 in A Cultural History of Sexuality Volume I In The Classical World editors Mark Golden, and Peter Toohey Editors

Golden, Mark and Peter Toohey. Editors. Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh, 2003.

Golden, Mark and Peter Toohey Editors. A Cultural History of Sexuality Volume I In The Classical World. Berg. Oxford and New York, 2011.

Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other essays on Greek Love. Routledge. New York and London, 1990.

Henderson, Jeffery. The Maculate Muse. Yale University Press. New Haven, 1975.

Garrison, Daniel H. Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, 2000.

Gilbert, PhD, Arthur N. “Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History”, p.57-68 in A Cultural History of Sexuality Volume I In The Classical World editors Mark Golden, and Peter Toohey Editors

Golden, Mark and Peter Toohey. Editors. Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh, 2003.

Greenberg, David F., “Transformations of Homosexuality-Based Classifications”, p. 179-193 in The Gender/Sexuality Reader Culture, History, Politico Economy, editors Roger N. Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo.

Karlen, Arno. Sexuality and Homosexuality A New View. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. New York, 1971.

King, “Sowing the Field: Greek and Roman Sexology”, p. 29-46 in Sexual Knowledge Sexual Science: The History of the Attitudes in Sexuality editors Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich.

Keuls, Eva C. The Reign of the Phallus Sexual Politics in Ancient Greece. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, & London, 1985.

Lancaster, Roger N. and Micaela di Leonardo editors. The Gender/Sexuality Reader Culture, History, Political Economy. Rouledge. New York and London, 1997.

Lear, Andrew and Eva Cantarella. Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty Boys were their gods. Routledge Taylor and Francs Group. London and New York, 2008.

Licht, Hans. Sexual Life in Ancient Greece. Constable and Company Limited. London, 1994.

McLure, Laura K. Editor. Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World Readings and Sources. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford & Malden, MA, 2002.

Mottier, Veronique. Sexuality A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York, 2008.

Nussabaum, Martha C. and Juha Sihvola. The Sleep of Reason Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 2002.

Phillips, Kim M. and Barry Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History. Polity Press. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA, 2011.

Porter, Roy and Mikulas Teich editors. Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of the Attitudes to Sexuality. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1994.

Roudinesco, Elisabeth. Translated by David Macey. Our Dark Side A History of Perversion. Polity. Malden, MA and Cambridge, UK, 2009.

Scanlon, Thomas F. Eros and Greek Athletics. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York, 2002.

Sissa, Giulia. Translated by George Staunton. Sex and Sensuality in the Ancient World. Yale University Press. New Haven and London, 2008.

Thorton, Bruse S. Eros The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality. Westview Press. Boulder, CO, 1997.

Vanggard, Thorkil. Phallos A Symbol and Its History in the Male World. International Universities Press, Inc. New York, 1972.

Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford University Press. Oxford & New York, 1999.

Winkler, John J. The Constraints of Desire The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. Routledge. New York and London, 1990.

Winkler, John J. “Laying Now the Law: The Oversight of Men’s Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens”, p. 171-209 in Before Sexuality The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World editors David M. Halperin, John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin.

Younger, John G. Sex in the Ancient World From A to Z. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. London and New York, 2005.


Signatures: 0

forum

Date Name Message