Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

	This article is part of WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within classical antiquity.

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.

Older discussion:

• Archive 1 (Apr 2005-Aug 2006)
• Archive 2 (10 Aug 2006-25 Aug 2006)
• Archive 3 (19 Aug 2006-26 Aug 2006)
• Archive 4 (26 Aug 2006-14 Sept 2006)
• Archive 5 (21 Sept 2006-30 Oct 2006): includes discussion of Cretanpride's death threat

Contents 1 Update on the threat 2 Scholarly consensus and "controversies" section 3 A note 4 Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades 5 Spartans? 6 Bias

[edit] Update on the threat

I've just received a call from the police officer; it turns out that he wasn't able to verify the identity that I gave him, so the timing of Cretanpride's second email was a coincidence. Given that email, it seems extremely probable that this was a hoax; while making a hoax death threat is still a serious matter, I think that we can all relax a bit now. I'm going to continue to pursue the investigation, but the urgency has diminished. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not too soon to pin a coda on this particular episode:

"Fair Greece! Sad relic of departed worth!
Immortal, though no more. Though fallen, great!
Who now shall lead thy scattered children forth,
And long accustomed bondage uncreate?
Not such thy sons who whileome did await,
The hopeless warriors of a willing doom,
In bleak Thermopylae's sepulchral strait—
Oh! Who that gallant spirit shall resume,
Leap from Eurotas' banks, and call thee from the tomb?"
Haiduc 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilariously apt. Well said, Haiduc — and, indeed, well said Byron. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know if this guy comes from Greece and yet you make generalisations on an entire nation with such ease. This practice is by no means any wiser than the homosexual-bashing remarks coming from this guy (or should I say 'boy'). This edit is the proof that you're as biased as he is. Miskin 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Cretanpride consistently identified himself as Greek, and claimed to be defending the honor of the Greeks: see this diff, and this one, for example. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So did Pete Sampras, but he's not from Greece. Miskin 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having this conversation, but I believe that the point Haiduc was making with his Byron quote was that Cretanpride was a poor representative of Greek civilization. At least, that's how I interpreted it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But funny indeed, as Lord Byron was probably the first Westener ever to understand what Greece is really about. It's ironic when someone like you quotes him with the intention of humiliating what he gave his life for - showing clearly that you haven't understood anything about neither Byron nor Greece yourself. Miskin 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Byron was not afraid to point out the difference between the men of old and those of his day - and we should not see it as humiliating. If his verses have value, and they do, it is because their truth is universal. When he says,
Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not
Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?
it is an exhortation that is as true today as in his time, and applicable to all of us, don't you think? Let's each take from him what we can, and not blame the others for imaginary sins. Haiduc 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly consensus and "controversies" section

The article starts off by claiming that ancient Greek society was divided between "actives" and "passives", and near the end it goes on to say that "Although this perspective is the scholarly consensus in North America and Northern Europe, some scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such relationships were not widely practiced by the common people (demos). One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common people's dislike for male homosexuality". Is this the NPOV policy? Basing an article on one single view and writing all the "controversies" at the end? Have you personally read everything there to this subject to conclude that Thornton is a minority view? Miskin 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You might find an answer to your question in the archives; Dover's work is a classic. Even Bruce Thornton says so! The Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a major source for the article, is a standard reference work in the field and represents accepted, mainstream views.

Thornton's views aren't that much different from other scholars who write about sex & love in the ancient world; his discussion of pederasty doesn't differ all that much from Dover's. If we were to rewrite the article on the basis of a honest reading of Thornton, it wouldn't change very much. The bit that Miskin quotes, however, is about one point in which Thornton is in the minority: a few scholars, among them Thornton and (maybe) David Cohen, believe that pederasty was limited to the elite. Most scholars who write about this topic think that pederasty was more widespread (e.g Victoria Wohl and Nick Fisher). So on this particular point Thornton is the minority view, and it's appropriate to have that in the "controversies" section. There might be better ways to present this information, but for some reason I seem to be spending most of my time in disputes on the talk page rather than improving the articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And why was my last edit reverted? Miskin 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken Akhilleus. I'm not generally questioning the article's content but its wording. All those expressions of the type "love this" and "love that" are simply ludicrous. Can you imagine a Britannica article saying anything similar? The "non-constructive" sarcasm I made in Talk:Alexander the Great aimed to emphasize what's happening. This has nothing to do with homophobia, I don't even believe in such a silly term. It has to do with people adding undue weight in wikipedia because of their own personal issues. Just because something is important in your personal life, it doesn't mean that you have the right to "rub it in the face" of wikipedia's readers. Okay there's an article on the homosexuality of ancient Greece, is it really important enough so that every ancient Greece-related article should have a "homosexuality" category, a separate homosexuality section, and links to a bunch of other homosexuality-related articles? If this is not undue weight then what is? In my eyes, a minority of editors is trying to "spoon-feed" wikipedia's readers with their direct or indirect implications about how a great or perhaps the greatest of ancient civilisations was involved in homosexuality. In your eyes, I'm just a "homophobe". Isn't that too easy? Miskin 01:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, this isn't just about people's personal lives. There is extensive scholarship on the subject of the sexual views and practices of the ancient Greeks. If you feel that other articles have problems with undue weight, please take it up on those articles. Meanwhile, let's keep this article's talk page focussed on this article, shall we?

I don't feel that it is inappropriate for an article on sexuality to talk about love. For what it's worth, many scholarly works on this subject use the term "love" to describe various relationships between men; this article follows that usage.

Nobody is trying to rub anything in anyone's face. The only goal is to have an article that is accurate, and reflects the latest scholarship. If the scholarly consensus makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you should examine your own attitudes towards homosexuality. Meanwhile, I think it's more productive to focus on specifics rather than making generalizations. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Miskin that the article was using the word "love" in a problematic way, and that it contributed to an unencyclopedic tone. Personally, I'd like to avoid the word, since it has such a broad range in English, which may or may not reflect what's going on in Greek. For eros I usually prefer words like "desire" or "passion", but it's pretty dependent on context.

As far as Miskin's other points, I think all I can say is that we should make sure the article is as well-sourced as possible, and if anyone feels that the article doesn't reflect what the primary and secondary sources say, it needs to be pointed out and fixed. But I'd ask everyone to remember that this article was barely started before Cretanpride started his sockpuppetry campaign, and the effort of fighting that has taken away from actually writing the thing. It's still a work in progress, just like the rest of Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note

I have blocked Takidis indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned user Cretanpride. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What if you're wrong? Miskin 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So I take it you're able to check IPs, very useful. Miskin 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades

I've tried to form a compromise wording in the Achilles and Patroclus section. However, I realized that I don't know what our source is for saying that Orestes and Pylades were portrayed as lovers, sexual or non-sexual. It's been a while since I read the Oresteia, but I don't recall any romantic overtones there. Does anyone know where this came from? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that anything has changed from before my edits. This is actually my only content-dispute, the misinterpretation of the Iliad and the relevant implications. From what I've read it is highly supported that homosexuality was brought to Greece by the Dorians, therefore it doesn't generalise to Mycenaean times. I know of scholars who interpret Homer's account on Achilles and Patroclus as a purely friendly relationship that came to be misintrepreted as a homosexual relationship during Classical times. Despite what you say, I find this section to be biased and one-sided. Even if it doesn't explicitely say it, it screams indirectly that Homer implies that Achilles and Patroclus were a couple, which is simply not true. I know Josiah's opinion on this and I find it pulled by the hair and unsupported, Homer doesn't have any homosexual implications, and many scholars acknowledge it. Miskin 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's mostly true — there are no explicitly homosexual implications in Homer. The wording in that section is based on the spun-out article Achilles and Patroclus, which has quotations from Gregory Nagy and David Halperin (writing in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the standard work in the field of classicism). I'm not sure how saying "Homer does not explicitly depict the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as sexual" makes the implication you think it does. The section should report the facts: the evidence in Homer is equivocal, and can be interpreted either way. Most, but not all, Classical sources assumed the two were lovers. The major debate in the Classical period was which of the two was erastes and which was eromenos.

I'm not comfortable with using the word "misinterpreted", because that assumes that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to interpret these two mythical characters. It's in the nature of myth to be reinterpreted in each age, according to that age's cultural beliefs and concerns. Homer is, of course, the foundation stone for any interpretation of Achilles, but he's not the totality: if he were, we wouldn't speak of Achilles' invulnerability or "Achilles' heel", neither of which have any Homeric basis.

So there's only the presentation in the original text, and how it has been interpreted in different periods. If you feel that the section places undue weight on the interpretation of the two as lovers, please provide sources for the scholars you mention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to what Josiah's said, which I agree with, most secondary sources on this topic agree that Homer doesn't present A. & P. as an erastes/eromenos pair, but there's at least one person who thinks that they are lovers in the Iliad. I'll give some sources at a later time over on Talk:Achilles and Patroclus, if haven't been incorporated into the article already--I haven't looked at it lately. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spartans?

Hi, I'm a Yale undergraduate currently majoring in Classics and writing a paper on pederasty, homosociality, and male identity in the Greek world. I've noticed a significant omission from this article-- there is no mention of Spartan homosociality in the agoge. Would someone more qualified than I please add this section? Professor Donald Kagan recently gave an excellent lecture on this topic, and cited Xenophon and Plutarch as possible sources.

Also, some citations in the original Greek might be helpful in making this page more scholarly. Finally, I think Burwick's Eros and Polis, should be cited along with Dover. Another source which might prove useful is an anthology recently published by Chicago UP entitled Erotikon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.V. Marraccini (talk • contribs) .

Thanks A.V. I actually have that anthology, but have not gotten a chance to read through it yet. I don't know if I have time to search for some good material in there, but I'll see what I can do. Welcome to the wiki and the page and I'd say BE BOLD! and go ahead and try your hand at a section yourself! Just be sure to avoid original research and cite your sources. CaveatLector^Talk 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CaveatLector. I will head over to the library and get some more sources before I do the section though-- I think Paul Cartledge also deserves some mention, and I would like to cite his essay on homosociality in Spartan Reflections properly.

A.V. Marraccini 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article has a definite bias toward the claim that homosexuality was simply a practice of the elite in Greek society. I disagree, because common sense would disagree. The claim is based on the claim that homosexuality is a choice, it is homophobic because it intends to posit the homosexual as a higher class in Greek society that "fucked" literally the lower "heterosexual" classes. This is incorrect. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece existed in all socio-economic classes. Anyone could be a homosexual, a member of the elite, a commoner, a slave. This is the nature of homosexuality today. However since the proportion of elite vs. common populace means the populace is much greater in number than the elite, most ancient Greek homosexuals would be a member of the lower, most common class.

Now since most ancient Greek homosexuals would be of the lower class, I see no reason why these theories about homosexuals in higher classes engaging in relationships with those in lower classes out of cultural tradition of not wanting to be the "passive" partner if you were of higher social status. This would not apply to most Greek homosexuals. --Revolución hablar ver 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is far from infalliable. Also note the sources we have to deal with: the authors being generally upper-class would be far more likely to highlight anything involving the upper classes than specifics of the lower classes alone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point, Revolución, but what you call "common sense" Wikipedia calls original research. That is, your argument may be perfectly sound, but unless it's been printed in a reliable source we can't put it in the article. The article as it stands reflects the views of scholars in the field, who disagree on the matter of whether homosexual activity was widespread in all classes, or largely limited to the upper classes. (Note that the article mentions scholars on both sides of this debate, and doesn't say which side is correct.) If you feel that the article gives undue weight to the position held by scholars like Bruce Thornton, you can make that argument; however, for better or for worse we can't change sourced Wikipedia articles based on "common sense" alone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Revolución, you are working within a modern construct as you raise your concerns. The Greeks did not think of sexuality the way we did (in terms of 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual'). They did not see same-sex desire as something definable within its own category (as the scholars who are cited in the article discuss). They constructed 'proper' sexual behavior based on class. These conclusions do not intend to posit what you feel they do. Rather, they posit a construction of sexuality and society where the sex of the person you slept with was not seen as an identity. (The word 'Homosexual' itself was created by the Victorians in order to pathologize us and place us into a category of mental illness). Same-sex attraction just didn't carry the stigma it did within our society. The stigma for the Ancient Greeks (as, again, the sources in the article articulate) was focused around being penetrated, and therefore made a social inferior. This all, of course, applies to the upper class, but the fact is that Ancient Greece WAS the upper class. We don't have lower class sources, and we can't say much about them. They didn't play a large part in government or history at the time. Surely, there were lower class people with same-sex desire. That is a given. But when we are trying to reconstruct how the Ancient Greeks viewed same-sex desire, we cannot rely on speculation over the lower class. We can't really say anything, so we have to stick with the sources we have and the things we do know. Thanks for the concern, though. It's a relief to find someone criticizing this article who actually has good faith. CaveatLector^Talk 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)