Thanks for this informative post
Submitted by 194 on March 2 2002 15:14:03
In reply to Classical views of homosexuality submitted by Heather on March 2 2002 14:16:54
|
Well, I didn't mean to imply that no Romans ever condemned sex with slaves (there may be some anti-slave-sex treatise out there somewhere), only that it wasn't generally condemned That's what I thought you meant; thanks for the clarification. Personally, I would have imagined that if sex with slaves was strongly condemned in Roman life there would have likely have been some records indicating this (this is not saying there could not possibly be an undiscovered anti-slave-sex treatise or two tucked away somewhere). Thanks for the information on the Pagan Neo-Platonist condemnation of all homosexuality; I find it interesting that they condemned *all* homosexuality, not just pederasty and paedophilia; I haven't read it just yet. The way that classical people thought about sex in general was that it was hierarchal:...... I had formed the impression that maybe that was the case; rightly or wrongly, I form the impression that there are people who regard it that way today also. I must confess to not reading the Bible very much, so thanks for pointing me in the direction of the Epistles. That's why you couldn't have two freeborn citizen men going to bed together (at least in theory; we know it happened in practice): because one of them would have to take the subordinate role, which was considered humiliating I am sensitive to the likelihood that if it was considered humiliating, it would have been humiliating in practice. The other big difference is that everyone - and I'm including the Christians - assumed that an attraction to boys was common. Now, I *do* find this surprising. While I doubt the General Roman Public were professional statisticians of sexual preference, it seems likely to me that they must have had some reason for considering this to be the case; i.e. that sexual attraction to boys was common. If the ancient Romans (and perhaps other ancient peoples?) considered that attraction to boys to be common, and modern peoples consider it to be not very common, could it be that ancient peoples had a somewhat different working definition of attraction? What could account for the differing perceptions of social reality? Regards 194............ |
Follow ups: